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

[Smith, Brad]

I remain somewhat puzzled by the idea that candidate speech should be favored over citizen speech. Earlier in this campaign, for example, Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter cut a video specifically attacking Charles and David Koch and their company, Koch Industies. So far as I know, this did not run on television. But the idea that Stephanie Cutter might go on the air for the Obama campaign and get a discounted rate to attack a private business and private citizens, but that the targets of her attacks would have to pay a non-discounted rate to respond, should be off putting to Americans who see themselves as citizens and the President as their servant, rather than seeing themselves as subjects and the President as their master. The same, obviously, would apply to attacks by Republican candidates against private citizens.

Similarly, there is no reason why a candidate should get a discount to argue for a particular economic policy, but concerned citizens should have to pay the full freight to explain why the candidate's policy is wrong - and perhaps, his statements misleading or, heaven forbid, even false.


Bradley A. Smith

Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault

   Professor of Law

Capital University Law School

303 E. Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43215

614.236.6317

http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx

________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Soren Dayton [soren.dayton at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 9:45 AM
To: Dan Johnson
Cc: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] More speech SuperPACS = less speech for candidates development

Speaking of false statements by candidates ....

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 1, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Dan Johnson <dan at kchrlaw.com<mailto: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<mailto: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/ffee200a/attachment.html>