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

[John White]

This brings us to the question of the meaning of the term "press" in the First Amendment. Professor Volokh's research and article presents a powerful case for "press" as a means of delivery of the message. There was no institutionalized "press" in the 20th Century sense.

The "press" as a constitutionally protected industry would present its own distinct set of "arbitrary" line drawing, and might still given the recognized ability to bar foreign money.

Would the Post be protected if it became a subsidiary of IBM or Exxon? Could the Koch brothers editorialize to their heart's content without disclosure if they bought CNN?

Could the government censor the BBC's broadcasts, or require advance approval of partcular stories carried on US cable to protect the interest in barring foreign money?

An exception for "institutional" press would likely lead to acquisitions of press entities - to exploit the exception.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
________________________________
From: Mark Rush <markrush7983 at gmail.com>
Sender: "law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu" <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 03:42:54 -0700
To: law-election at uci.edu<law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] "If ... the Washington Post ... wants to ... spend money on behalf of candidates"

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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20120602/4e9d76a0/attachment.html>