Thank You Roberts, Alito and Scalia

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

Well, if we're going to deprive entities of free speech - and the first amendment authors were particularly interested in protecting political speech - was then we're going to have to be consistent. We'll need to deprive churches, unions, charitable organizations, PAC's and other entities the right to free speech as well.

I have no problem with that, much better than saying "Well we screwed up in allowing PACS, etc. so lets screw up royally and treat corporations as if they were human."The Framers were interested in protecting the rights of free speech for people, as people, not as organizations.

For example, the Repulican Governors Association is running ads against Governor O'Malley in favour of Ehrlich, why? They don't live here, let them mind their own damn business.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

Well, if we're going to deprive entities of free speech - and the first amendment authors were particularly interested in protecting political speech - was then we're going to have to be consistent. We'll need to deprive churches, unions, charitable organizations, PAC's and other entities the right to free speech as well.

Churches already have limits on political speech. They lose their tax exempt status for endorsing candidates. That is a recognition that the institution exists for a reason other than political endorsement. I have no problem with restrictions being placed on unions, PACs, non-profits with respect to the commercial speech they make. Time and manner restrictions on speech have always been permitted. Restrictions in the timing of political advertisements by such organizations, or on the financial support of candidates by those entities are appropriate.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Churches already have limits on political speech. They lose their tax exempt status for endorsing candidates. That is a recognition that the institution exists for a reason other than political endorsement. I have no problem with restrictions being placed on unions, PACs, non-profits with respect to the commercial speech they make. Time and manner restrictions on speech have always been permitted. Restrictions in the timing of political advertisements by such organizations, or on the financial support of candidates by those entities are appropriate.

Regards,

D-Ray

So, what political speech is OK, and what is not? Who decides?

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

I have no problem with that, much better than saying "Well we screwed up in allowing PACS, etc. so lets screw up royally and treat corporations as if they were human."The Framers were interested in protecting the rights of free speech for people, as people, not as organizations.

For example, the Repulican Governors Association is running ads against Governor O'Malley in favour of Ehrlich, why? They don't live here, let them mind their own damn business.

OK, let's say we preclude entities from exercising free speech. What about a homeowners association that wants to oppose a shopping mall that city council might approve. They would not be allowed to advertise their opposition to the project?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

OK, let's say we preclude entities from exercising free speech. What about a homeowners association that wants to oppose a shopping mall that city council might approve. They would not be allowed to advertise their opposition to the project?

Near as I know the way that gets done is turning out in force at the next zoning meeting. Had some rather personal experience with that. The former property owner across the street dug into his hillside and put one of the ugliest tennis courts right at the end of our driveway, but off to the side of his view. The bad part was he started giving tennis lessons and some days we could not get out of our own driveway. So we took him before the zoning board and jerked a knot in his tail - twice. I figure that was why he sold out and moved.

Of course in an election year get enough signatures and they will put a question on the ballot, Anne Arundel County has one up now over putting a slot machineparlour next to the big mall.

Personal opinion of homeowners associations is that they can be a real PITA.

[d-ray657]

First, I see no basis for protection of anonymous advertising. Free speech is a personal freedom, and it is contrary to the First Amendment's purpose to misrepresent the identity of the speaker. False speech is not protected. Therefore, if a front organization is speaking for a corporation, but not disclosing that it is doing so, it is not being truthful. Thus it forfiets its protection.

As I stated before, time, place and manner restrictions on speech are consistent with the First Amendment. Purchased speech that interferes with democracy should be limited in time, place and manner.

There is always a balancing that takes place in determining the extent of rights. First Amendment rights can clash with property rights. The ability to have a significantly greater voice because of the ability to purchase that voice interferes with true democracy. The courts have created exceptions to Fourth Amendment protections for "exigent circumstances." The sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply to misdemeanors. A city can place limits on the use of loudspeakers in a neighborhood. By analogy, there should be a limit on the ability of dollars to amplify the voice of entities who are not real persons.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

First, I see no basis for protection of anonymous advertising. Free speech is a personal freedom, and it is contrary to the First Amendment's purpose to misrepresent the identity of the speaker. False speech is not protected. Therefore, if a front organization is speaking for a corporation, but not disclosing that it is doing so, it is not being truthful. Thus it forfiets its protection.

Weren't the Federalist Papers published under pseudonyms? By those standards, the Federalist papers might not exist today. I don't see anywhere in the 1st Amendment that failure to publish one's identity exempts one from 1st Amendment protection.

Originally Posted by d-ray657

As I stated before, time, place and manner restrictions on speech are consistent with the First Amendment. Purchased speech that interferes with democracy should be limited in time, place and manner.

There are campaign laws that attempt to frame the terms of engagement in the political arena. Created by the politicians that live under these rules, campaign laws have always struck me as mechanisms that allow foxes to maintain guard duty over the chicken coop. It is within those campaign laws that the organization in question found an opening, or loophole. Unless the loophole is closed prior to the next campaign cycle, I'd wager that both parties will find a way to exploit it. I'd ask how this particular ad "interferes with democracy" - I'd suggest that it is participation in the process. I understand that some might not appreciate the content, but when a candidate enters the political arena, they become "fair game" for commentary.

Originally Posted by d-ray657

By analogy, there should be a limit on the ability of dollars to amplify the voice of entities who are not real persons.

Is there the same indignance to a George Soros pumping millions to influence elections, behind the various entities he supports? Like it or not, 'Ol George is not crossing legal lines in his activities.

http://www.campaignmoney.com/biography/george_soros.asp

Again, if there was such a prohibition, and it is currently not the "law of the land", then it would need to apply to all entities: PAC's, unions, associations, agencies, religious entities, etc.