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

[JBoppjr at aol.com]

The point is that the same interests used to exempt certain people or  
entities from the freedom of speech can be used to exempt them from freedom  of 
the press. So when former Justice Stevens argues that the government has an  
interest in only letting people who vote to speak, then that same interest 
can  be deployed against the freedom of the press.  Jim Bopp
 
 
In a message dated 6/2/2012 7:26:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
white at lfa-law.com writes:

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_ 
(http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election) 





-- 
Mark  Rush

=

_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing  list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120602/40e88ded/attachment.html>