[EL] Animals, androids, space aliens, ghosts or rocks

[Jamin Raskin]

“And the Citizens United decision had nothing to do with them being a corporation. The First Amendment bars restrictions on speech and press, no matter who or what the speaker or publisher might be. There is no specification that it s only the speech or publication by human individuals. It could be by animals, androids, space aliens, ghosts, or rocks.”

If I read this post correctly, Jon Roland is saying that not only do domestic corporations, animals, androids, space aliens, ghosts, and rocks have an absolute right to spend money promoting or maligning candidates in our federal political campaigns, but so also do: foreign corporations, foreign governments and spy agencies, state governments and municipal corporations and counties, federal agencies like HUD, the Department of Labor and the CIA, narco-traffickers and drug money launderers, three-year olds and newborns, and churches and charities and other entities holding tax-exempt status, to name just a few entities and human beings whose money has been kept at bay by the law.

Is your position, as suggested by your admirably candid post, really that anything goes in campaign spending, “no matter who or what the speaker or publisher might be,” because it all adds to the overall quantity of speech?  (If not, why not?)         

 

 

 

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Jon Roland
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 10:08 AM
To: Sal Peralta
Cc: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] The apocalypse

 

Money is mostly not speech. It is mostly press.

Campaign donations made to support marketing of a candidate is "press" rather than "speech" in the strict use of those words. The donor is contracting with the campaign to publish something he wants published, even if he does not specify the exact message. He is delegating the composition of the message to the campaign. Campaigns do use part of their donations for other things, like transportation and salaries of campaign workers, but almost all of that is in support of marketing. That is what makes it a matter of the First Amendment.

Jurisprudence got off on a track of decisions about "speech" and to follow precedent, has tried to cram everything into the "speech" pigeonhole, but this is really "press", that is, publication. The Citizens United decision was about press, because publishing is what Citizens United was doing by putting out a movie.

Voters have just as much a right to choose what marketing messages they will heed as which candidate to vote for. If they heed the wrong messages, that is their choice, it is not ours to try to compel that choice.

And the Citizens United decision had nothing to do with them being a corporation. The First Amendment bars restrictions on speech and press, no matter who or what the speaker or publisher might be. There is no specification that it s only the speech or publication by human individuals. It could be by animals, androids, space aliens, ghosts, or rocks.



On 09/22/2014 08:51 AM, Sal Peralta wrote: 

if you would agree to use the word "money" instead of "speech"






-- 
 
----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society               http://constitution.org
13359 N Hwy 183 #406-144               twitter.com/lex_rex
Austin, TX 78750 512/299-5001  jon.roland at constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140922/4dd6efa7/attachment.html>