CourtZero.org
the courts have ruled (us)…now
let them enforce it
Separation of people and faith Freedom of speech
Same-sex marriage Freedom of association
Foreign courts deciding our law Historical bad law
Freedom of
Speech
There’s only one case
below, because it is recent, because it is from the Supreme Court, and because
it’s a big deal.
Free
Speech, the 1st Amendment, and “campaign finance reform”
In the case of McConnel
v. Federal Election Commission, decided by the United States Supreme Court in
December, 2003, the Court tells us some interesting things about the limits the
judges will place on free speech. It is
important to point out that what we call “campaign finance reform” was passed
by Congress and signed by the President, so all of government has conspired, in
this case, to restrict how much we, the people, can try to influence
government. It is even more important to
note that many either hoped or assumed that the Supreme Court would overturn
the legislation. The fact that it did
not exposes the myth of an “independent judiciary” needed to protect against
the excesses of political whim. The
courts do no such thing. Here are some
quotes from the case:
“Our cases have made clear that the prevention
of corruption or its appearance constitutes a sufficiently important interest
to justify political contribution limits”
“Of ‘almost equal’ importance has been the
Government's interest in combating the appearance or perception of corruption
engendered by large campaign contributions”
So far, here’s what we’ve got: if those in power say that they are corrupt,
or appear to be corrupt, they can stop the people from trying to influence
them. Are we allowed to participate in
government if they are not corrupt?
“…the First Amendment would render Congress
powerless to address more subtle but equally dispiriting forms of corruption.”
By all means, let’s not let the First Amendment
get in the way of empowering dispirited congressmen.
“if…restrictions on solicitations are otherwise
valid, they are not rendered unconstitutional by the mere fact that Congress
chose not to regulate the activities of another group as stringently as it
might have”
What?
Court approval to enforce the law differently depending on what group
you belong to?
In addition….
“[no person or group may engage in] broadcast,
cable, or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate
for Federal office; [and] is made within
60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for the office
sought by the candidate; or 30 days before a primary or preference election…”
If you have suggestions
for other free speech cases, send e-mail to postmaster@courtzero.org