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

[Mark Rush]

The court touched upon Eugene's point in CU, I believe.

It's such an obvious issue...  Why does the press get a free pass?


On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> wrote:

> 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****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
Mark Rush
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120602/9e0fecd1/attachment.html>