[EL] Citizens United revisionist history: "banning books"

[Benjamin Barr]

Dear Marty,

Just because government might force others to speak for you doesn't mean
your First Amendment rights haven't been abridged.  Or as Justice Kennedy
explained in *Citizens United*:  "A PAC is a separate association from the
corporation. So the PAC exemption from §441b’s expenditure ban,
§441b(b)(2), does not allow corporations to speak."  There you have it.

You probably don't want me to speak for you.  I don't want you to speak for
me.  You get it, right?  Individual rights are individual, not fungible,
aggregate hazy approximations (apologies, Justice Breyer).

Corporations are neat things.  They allow for people to associate with one
another, pursue common goals, get rich, clean up the environment, enact
social justice, and so on.  Cutting off shareholders from effective
advocacy is, well, a ban.  I'll leave it to the literature hounds to
determine if it rises to a Fahrenheit-451 level.

Forward,

Benjamin Barr
General Counsel
Pillar of Law Institute




On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.marty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> No -- even a (hypothetical) (non-MCfL-exempt) corporation without a PAC
> would not be "barred" from publishing a book.  Even if the book contained
> express advocacy, the law permitted a corporation to publish it as long as
> it did not use shareholder funds to do so.  That is to say, it would as a
> practical matter have to set up a PAC and collect funds for the purpose of
> publishing the express advocacy.  This sort of source restriction (not a
> publication restriction) really wasn't such a shocking idea -- it was the
> legal regime that had been in place for 60 years, and -- understandably --
> no one thought that we lived in a Fahrenheit-451-like world in which the
> state "banned books."
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Jonathan Adler <jha5 at case.edu> wrote:
>
>> Well, kinda.
>>
>> Pressed on the issue, he acknowledged that (under the government's
>> position) a corporation could be banned from publishing a book unless it
>> used PAC funds to pay for publication, so a corporate publisher that lacked
>> a PAC, could be barred from publishing and distributing the book.
>>
>> Here's the transcript. The relevant exchanges occur at pages 28-30.
>>
>> JHA
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.marty at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Just an aside, to address the oft-repeated canard that "the deputy
>>> solicitor defended government power to *ban books* at the first CU
>>> argument."
>>>
>>> Of course Malcolm Stewart said nothing of the sort.  He said that if a
>>> *corporation* wished to publish a book containing express advocacy, the
>>> state could require that such publication *not be subsidized by general
>>> corporate treasury funds*.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Ilya Shapiro <IShapiro at cato.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But there's no need to balance rights/values here. 200 people spending
>>>> a lot of money on political speech don't inhibit anybody else's right to
>>>> spend money on speech (individually or pooled) or to knock on doors, or to
>>>> otherwise engage in political speech. There's not some zero-sum game with a
>>>> finite amount of speech (or a finite amount of money to spend on it).
>>>>
>>>> Also, three points regarding some mistaken premises (not sure to what
>>>> extent the rest of your argument stands or falls thereby):
>>>>
>>>> 1. Money is speech only insofar as bullhorns, laptops, printing
>>>> presses, wifi, and other tools for facilitating speech are, no more no
>>>> less. That really shouldn't be controversial -- though perhaps, like the
>>>> deputy solicitor who defended govt power to ban books at the first CU
>>>> argument, many people on this list are ok with restricting all those tools
>>>> if they're used "too much" for political speech.
>>>>
>>>> 2. There's not a consensus that money shouldn't be used to allocate
>>>> kidneys. There's a reason there's a shortage of organs and people die on
>>>> waiting lists. And evidence from Iran, of all places, show that kidney
>>>> markets can work rather well.
>>>>
>>>> 3. I'm not sure what "false" allegations about Planned Parenthood you
>>>> mean -- I guess something different/earlier than the current scandal -- but
>>>> surely it's not the government role to be some sort of fact-checker
>>>> regarding public debates. See the Ohio law that was before the Court last
>>>> year (you'll perhaps recall my satirical brief that PJ O'Rourke joined) and
>>>> was struck down on remand.
>>>>
>>>> Ilya Shapiro
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jonathan H. Adler
>> Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law
>> Director, Center for Business Law & Regulation
>> Case Western Reserve University School of Law
>> 11075 East Boulevard
>> Cleveland, OH 44106
>> ph) 216-368-2535
>> fax) 216-368-2086
>> cell) 202-255-3012
>> jha5 at case.edu
>> SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=183995
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/author/adlerj/
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> 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/20151011/5bbd2b89/attachment.html>