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

[Schultz, David A.]

I second Professor Raskin's call for honesty here.  My Constitution Day
talk was all about the tortured and conceptually muddled constitutional
examination of who or what is a person over time.  But given Roland's
comments they lead me to ask a few questions of those on this listserv who
seem to support less restrictions or regulation of money in politics.

1.    Should any entity or person that wants to donate or expend money for
political purposes  be able to do so in any amount they want?  In effect,
regardless of whether something is a person, should any entity be able to
convert its entire economic resources into political donations or
expenditures without limit?

2.  Should any entity or person that wants to donate or expend money for
political purposes  be able to do so without having to disclose it?

Okay folks, to paraphrase Justice Roberts's comments during orals over the
constitutionality of the ACA, show me the courage of your convictions.  If
what you are really advocating is complete deregulation with no disclosure
and no limits on who or what gives and how much, then say so.  For people
like Roland who seem to be both libertarian free marketers and so-called
free speech absolutists, this is the logic of your position.  Fess up.

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Jamin Raskin <raskin at wcl.american.edu>
wrote:

> “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
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
Department of Political Science
1536 Hewitt Ave
MS B 1805
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3170 (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
My latest book:  Election Law and Democratic Theory, Ashgate Publishing
http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754675433
FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140922/f6903def/attachment.html>