[EL] More speech SuperPACS = less speech for candidates development

[Beckel, Michael]

Aren't candidates, unlike super PACs, guaranteed the lowest unit rate within 60 days of the general election?

Could local TV stations really have sold all the available time to independent expenditure-only committees or nonprofit groups?

Thanks,
Michael Beckel
Center for Public Integrity

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Dan Johnson
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 9:18 AM
To: Election Law
Subject: [EL] More speech SuperPACS = less speech for candidates development

This is an interesting factual development.

One of the core arguments of ending limits on campaign expenditures has been that buying more political advertisements is a good thing, as more speech begets more speech.

One congressional challenger, Alan Grayson, posted yesterday that his campaign commercial (the only positive one, he notes) is off the air, because the avalanche of SuperPAC spending has tripled the rates for television commercials, putting the price of speech on television beyond his budget.

He (or his campaign) writes here:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/alan-grayson/we-are-off-the-air/467122639977387


You know that great positive ad<http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsecure.actblue.com%2Fcontribute%2Fpage%2Fpositivead&h=VAQGS6n8e&s=1> for our campaign that we showed you a couple of days ago? That breath of fresh air, dispelling the stench of paid political advertising?



It's off the air. We have assumed broadcast silence.



Why? Because the Super PACs have spent $25.6 million on Orlando TV, and the cost of TV spots here has tripled.



---



Whether you happen to agree with Alan Grayson's message or not, this looks like a clear example of a speech-chilling impact of unlimited campaign expenditures. It's almost like a tax on speech, as the there is only so much broadcast time to go around for political candidates, and the price has dramatically risen.


Seems like this provides some evidence that unlimited expenditures aren't unambiguously pro-speech. Limiting expenditures by some can have the effect of permitting more speech by others - and now there's a growing factual record to prove it.

Dan

--
Dan Johnson
Partner
Korey Cotter Heather Richardson LLC

Two First National Plaza
20 South Clark, Suite 500
Chicago, Illinois 60602

312.867.5377 (office)
312.933.4890 (mobile)
312.794.7064 (fax)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121001/a586e454/attachment.html>