[EL] Cruz op-ed on proposed constitutional amendment

[Mark Schmitt]

 This is a good question, Sean, but I'd like to rephrase it a bit less
tendentiously and perhaps one of the constitutional scholars on the list
can answer: Would a restriction on campaign spending that plainly wasn't
content-neutral (e.g., one that applied only to the NRA) be permitted
post-amendment? If the ability of Congress and states to regulate
election-related spending were fully protected, how would the Court be able
to invalidate such a law?

This is one of several ways in which a constitutional amendment might have
a very different effect than simply undoing Buckley, Citizens United, etc.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Sean Parnell" <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
To: "Election Law" <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Sent: 6/3/2014 3:02:06 PM
Subject: [EL] Cruz op-ed on proposed constitutional amendment


 I believe Rick linked to the op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Senator
Cruz
<http://online.wsj.com/articles/ted-cruz-the-democratic-assault-on-the-first-amendment-1401662112>
regarding the proposed constitutional amendment that would allow Congress
to regulate money spent in politics. There were a handful of examples of
what the Senator asserted the proposed amendment would do, I thought it
would be interesting to post them and see if anyone here, on any side of
the issue, wanted to either support or rebut the assertions. I’d note that
the claims made by the Senator largely mirror what I’ve said myself in the
past, so you can probably guess my thoughts on these assertions.



If this amendment were adopted, the following would likely be deemed
constitutional:

Congress could prohibit the National Rifle Association from distributing
voter guides letting citizens know politicians' records on the Second
Amendment.

Congress could prohibit the Sierra Club from running political ads
criticizing politicians for their environmental policies.

Congress could penalize pro-life (or pro-choice) groups for spending money
to urge their views of abortion.

Congress could prohibit labor unions from organizing workers (an in-kind
expenditure) to go door to door urging voters to turn out.

Congress could criminalize pastors making efforts to get their parishioners
to vote.

Congress could punish bloggers expending any resources to criticize the
president.

Congress could ban books, movies (watch out Michael Moore
<http://topics.wsj.com/person/M/Michael-Moore/5437> ) and radio
programs—anything not deemed "the press"—that might influence upcoming
elections.

Anybody care to explain how/why Senator Cruz is wrong, or failing that I
suppose, to argue that he’s right but that it’s a good thing these things
could be done under the proposed amendment?



Sean Parnell

President

Impact Policy Management, LLC

6411 Caleb Court

Alexandria, VA  22315

571-289-1374 (c)

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140604/7e367764/attachment.html>