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

[Benjamin Barr]

The purpose of the First Amendment isn't to level the playing field, Dan,
or to silence one category of speakers so others may speak more cheaply.
Fortunately, we know this as a matter of law. See Buckley, "It is argued,
however, that the ancillary governmental interest in equalizing the
relative ability of individuals and groups to influence the outcome of
elections serves to justify the limitation on express advocacy of the
election or defeat of candidates imposed by § 608(e)(1)'s expenditure
ceiling. But the concept that government may restrict the speech of some
elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is
wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed "to secure ‘the
widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic
sources,'" and "‘to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing
about of political and social changes desired by the people.'"

Factually, it appears a great deal of speech, some $25 million worth,
occurred in the Orlando market - perhaps it is just speech you don't like
very much?

Forward,

First Amendment Ben

Sent by my Android device. Please excuse any typographical errors.
On Oct 1, 2012 9:18 AM, "Dan Johnson" <dan at kchrlaw.com> wrote:

> 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)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121001/770f94c7/attachment.html>