[EL] "If ... the Washington Post ... wants to ... spend money on behalf of candidates"

[Volokh, Eugene]

Jamin Raskin writes:

No, I am not.  I am saying that if the Washington Times or the Washington Post or Haliburton or BP Oil or Massey Coal wants to give money directly to candidates or spend money on behalf of candidates, they should have to form Political Action Committees to do so, which is the way everything worked before Citizens United.


              But wait:  Isn't running an editorial in favor of a candidate "spend[ing] money on behalf of [the] candidate[]," given the expense of writer and editor salaries, any reasonable allocation of newsprint costs and overhead expenses, and so on?  Likewise, if, say, The New Republic, Nation, or National Review wants to put out an issue - or part of an issue - praising some candidate for office, or condemning another candidate, doesn't that involve "spend[ing] money on behalf of [the] candidate[]" (or against the candidate), just as it would if Citizens United wanted to distribute a video opposing a candidate, or if Ford wanted to send out flyers or put up billboards or distribute a 30-second video on broadcast television supporting a candidate?

              Eugene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120601/bd93bb67/attachment.html>