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

[Dan Johnson]

Dave and Michael,

Does the lowest unit rate apply to cable?

Thanks,
Dan

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:45 AM, David Mason <dmason12 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe Alan Grayson's fundraising pitch need a little fact-checking.
>
> As a candidate he is eligible for lowest unit rate, on broadcast ads at
> least.
>
> This is a wonderful fundraising pitch ("only positive ad", really?) but
> not a very useful point on campaign finance.
>
> Dave
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:17 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
>>
>
>


-- 
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/f81d51d8/attachment.html>