Redstate

What am I supposed to be upset about? A lot of organizations seprate into PAC and non-profit sides. Or is it something else I'm missing?

..i think it has to do with something called...uh..McCain-Feingold? Is that it? Oh yes, I am a smart little cookie, aren't I?

(really, imagine Stewie from Family Guy, k?)

between a c3 and a PAC.

Sure the whole McCain/Feingold BCRA thing was a sham.  Everyone in the industry knew it was.  The only people who were fooled were those who don't pay any attention to politics and even they got the vague impression that McCain/Feingold didn't change anything.

So while there are many great and legitimate reasons to be leery of McCain, a 501c3 is not the one that I would get behind.

I'd really like to see Congress pass a law that gives everyone, even the wealthy, the right to freedom of speech when it comes to political campaigns.

That should even be a constitutional amendment.  That way the courts couldn't change their minds 200 years later and decide they didn't like the law.

Money saved by sharing phone: Miniscule

Money spent on FEC fine: Lots more than the shared line saved

Violating your own campaign finance law: PRICELESS...

How that ever got confused with handing somebody some cash for political purposes is beyond me.  Of course, I'm an neophyte when it comes to constitional law but I'd like to see the twisting and "interpreting" that equated cash donations with speech.

Looks like it might be just a convoluted as a "penumbra" and somewhat more off track than Kelo but perhaps not as stretched as Raich?

Freedom of speech without the freedom to finance speech is relatively meaningless.

Say Congress passes a new provision of the Income Tax that singles out newspapers, or "any periodical publication", and blogs for a 100% income tax rate.  Still think you got freedom of speech?

Say they extend that law to cover any banks or financing companies who make loans to newspapers and blogs, or owners of blogs.  Not much of a freedom of speech now is there?

Or how about a law against "compensating any person for speaking or writing"?  Would that be a burden on the freedom of speech, do you think, or merely financial regulation with no impact on the freedom of speech?  After all, all of those now bankrupt reporters can still choose to speak and write, just not for a living.

It isn't that far of a stretch, I think.

-TS

not based upon ideology or specific politics but simply based upon how professional lobbyists drive our agenda today.  Look at the specific Congressional actions in this past session -- more legislation driven by lobbying organizations than any thing else.  It's tiresome and I think big money and politics are poor bedfellows for crafting policy.

Regarding your examples, they were instructive but they are, I think, a bit of a stretch.  A law targeting income taxes at a single industry?  Or laws regulating income for writers?  Rather farfetched.

On the other hand, I don't see the Constitution saying anything about your getting paid to speak freely only about your right to do so.  I know it's a matter of interpretation but we say it's okay to want terms like "public use" regulated strictly (unlike Kelo) but other terms should be more broadly interpreted (1st & 2nd amendment specifically).

Sophist, I know that I'm pretty raw when it comes to reading this stuff and I haven't followed the decisions and case law or read the Federalist Papers in 20 years (I should do so soon) but I'm trying to gain some sense of consistency in judicial philosophy and reasoning.  Is the elasticity permissible defined solely by how one feels about the social outcome?  

Any way, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just doing some self-education.

"A law targeting income taxes at a single industry?"

 - Tobacco

 - Alcohol

 - Gasoline

 - etc.

No too far fetched.

I propose taxing the last bastion of untaxed money...

The government.

but I see your point.  On the other hand, is the effect of big money in politics of no interest?  

If you accept constitutional interpretation to be applied conservatively in some cases, why not others?  Leaving personal ideology aside, what's the difference?

"On the other hand, is the effect of big money in politics of no interest?"

It is. But absent rewriting the Constitution to make it a legitimate exercise of government power to regulate commerce directly related to political speech, with the sole intent of preventing "big money" (unless it's a newspaper publisher's big money) from having an effect in politics...it's an issue that is left to the discretion of the voters themselves.

BTW, that is the root of the drive for "campaign finance reform" right there: the belief that the voters are just too damn stupid to figure out that out unassisted, so Big Daddy Government has to Do Something.

"If you accept constitutional interpretation to be applied conservatively in some cases, why not others?"

Which part of "Congress shall make no law" or "shall not be infringed" did you not understand?

Actually, they are exactly like income taxes, in that they are excise taxes, as is the income tax.

(n.b. Before I start, let me point out that I was thinking along the same lines as you are now at the time McF was originally passed: speech is speech, money is money, the second shouldn't fall within the penumbra of the first. Perfectly sensible. But it's more complicated than that.)

It isn't a question of asserting that slipping someone an envelope of $20s under the table is somehow an "act of speech" and therefore protected; it's that many acts of speech have monetary value. For instance, linking to a candidate's website, a seemingly innocuous act of speech, could potentially be considered an in-kind contribution. Quoting from a press release issued from a candidate: the same. You get the idea; you can cross-question, say, krempasky if you want the fine details on this.

In summary, I don't object to McF because I think contributing money to political campaigns should fall under the rubric of free speech, but because I think many forms of campaign contribution (which are not money, although they may have a dollar value) are protected exercises of free speech unjustly curbed by this act.

It wasn't my original intent but the topic has been on my mind for some time.  

As to your point, Congress has regulated speech in many ways and been its been upheld constitutionally.

Regulation of commercial speech, copyright protection, the Miller Test for obscenity.  There is Federal regulation of speech on the airwaves.  The SCOTUS has upheld prior constraint on the media by the government in some national security cases...

Anyway, it has never been held as an absolute and I was simply wondering at what point and why such constitutional protections were applied to corporations and other entities pursuing political objectives.  I have no object on a person being allowed to spend as much money as they want but political organizations and corporations are not voters.  I think it could be argued that their influence should be disaggregated and it wouldn't be a constitutional infringement to do so, necessarily.

Basically, it's a challenge to originalists like myself who deny that a right to privacy exists in the Constitution based on a reading of the text, while also stipulating a right to donate money to political campaigns.

I of course do not believe that interpretation or interpretive "elasticity" should be determined by the outcome.  As the quote in my .sig says, there is no such thing as a moderate interpretation of the text; there is only interpretation, or non-interpretation.

But in the case of political donations = political speech, I think you have to interpret the Constitution in such a way so as to not rob the text of its very meaning.  Originalism is just a term for the judicial philosophy that says we must give meaning to the words of the text, of the law.

To state that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, but then to claim that the Constitution does not prohibit Congressional efforts to eliminate financial support for speech, is to rob the First Amendment precisely of its meaning.  It is to make it toothless, in much the same way that the Second Amendment has been rendered toothless.

Without getting into targeted taxation, which is done all the time, suffice it to say that my hypotheticals were meant to illustrate the point that giving lip service to a freedom while preventing the practical implementation of that freedom is to eviscerate the freedom in question.

Under a strict textualist reading of the First Amendment, you could, I suppose, justify punishing people for listening to speech.  It doesn't say anything about the freedom to listen, just the freedom to speak.  But obviously, such a ridiculous interpretation of the First Amendment robs it of its very meaning, and it is that meaning that the Originalist seeks.

From that standpoint, restrictions on financing of speech is a threat to speech; it is a law abridging the freedom of speech.  McCain-Feingold is, by this reasoning, unconstitutional.

Me personally, I like the proposal by... I can't remember... Glenn Reynolds?  Bainbridge?... that we should allow unlimited contributions by anyone to anyone, but mandate full and open disclosure.  It works for our securities industries by and large -- buy as much stock as you want, but disclose it all -- so why not in politics?

-TS

You can see that I'm just trying to work my way through the reasoning.  I won't go into it at length but the Court has upheld, on numerous occasions, limits upon freedom of speech so it isn't an absolute right -- what right is?

I'm having a hard time framing my argument.  What I object to is the institutionalizing of money influecing a legislative agenda funded by corporations.  Frankly,  I have no problem with no limits on personal giving if fully disclosed.

If President Bush wants to host $1,000,000 a plate dinners and 1,000 rich folks show up and contribute then more power to him.

It's K-Street and corporations driving the process that trouble me.  After some research, I suppose my beef is with the 1886 Supreme Court Case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad which has been interpreted as granting all constitutional rights granted to people to corporations.  I just read the case and it doesn't seem to clearly state this directly but that is how it has been used as precedent.

Frankly, I see no reason why corporate behavior shouldn't be capable of begin fully regulated via legislation.  To the extent that it should be regulated is a different discussion.  No doubt, by now, this is irrevocably settled law.

Thank you for listening patiently as I stumble around.

...no "anonymous" corporate donations, and VERY prompt reporting timelines.

If a big corporation spends lots of money on a candidate, as far as I'm concerned, it's a very legitimate issue for debate in that campaign.

already disclosed just as individual contributions.  What is not "disclosed" are the dollars going to K-street salaries, entertainment expenses, lawyers working for lobbying firms drafting legislation, etc.  Hiring spouses of Congress persons, etc.

the first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech.

Does this mean that the First Congress intended to give pornographers the right to market naked pictures of kids?

No.

It means that political speech was something that they (the First Congress, and the 13 states that ratified the first amendment) felt deserved the full protection that a constitutional right would give it.

But rich people can talk all they want, you say.  They just can't give gobs of cash to politicians.

Well, McCain/Feingold (BCRA) makes it so that if I feel very strongly that John Kerry is a menace to society, and would raise taxes on people who made over $50,000 a year, I can't pay for my own TV ad and run it as often as I want.  BCRA limits my ability to do that.  This is the kind of speech that the First Congress and the states that ratified the First Amendment wanted to protect.

They didn't want to see people limited in their abilities to speak or spread political messages.

That is why independent ads should be protected.

What the liberals want to do is to silence their critics by imposing spending caps.  Then it will be harder for anyone except for the media (which is firmly on their side) to express a political opinion that will enjoy all of the benefits of mass communication.

Fine, if we want to go that route, where in the Constitution is the Congress granted the right to control private political organizations whose purpose is to advocate the election of a person to public office?

I can grant that political donations aren't public speech, if you'll grant that the Congress has no legal authority to pass campaign finance laws.

I'm sorry--am I missing something?  I don't get the reference.

With the linking.  Because google ranks on inbound links, there's a whole industry based on linking.  Check out linkadage.com.  If you link to someone, you are, in internet marketing terms, giving them potentially a couple hundred bucks worth of value.  But if I just happen to have a highly ranked web page and want to link to someone it seems to me to clearly be a speech issue.  So that's what we're confronting here.   I unfortunately don't have a clear answer.

Of the existence of the First Amendment.

Don't feel bad. So is the Supreme Court.

I'm pouring lye on my monitor to neutralize it as we speak.

if a 'reporter' writes a favorable article for one candidate (one whom he just happens to favor) and an unfavorable one for his opponent? But hey, they're "professionals" who are "objective" and only bring the public "facts".