Well, some people ask what distinguishes "news" outlets like the New York
Times "from a corporate or party newsletter that is subject to regulation"
more broadly.  One possible response is nothing, so the New York Times
should lack the constitutional right to editorialize in support of
candidates.  Another response is nothing, so corporations should be just as
free as the New York Times to do so.
 
But let me set aside this broad debate, which we've often had on the list,
and focus on the narrower one.  The post below seems to distinguish speech
by "a 'news' outlet like this, owned and used for electioneering purposes by
a candidate" from "bona fide . . . commentary" by a normal newspaper
(presumably without the quotes around it).  I wonder what the distinction
would be.  Why should it matter whether the National Review wants to endorse
Ronald Reagan for President or Bill Buckley for Mayor?  Why is the first
constitutionally protected, but the second constitutionally unprotected?
(The answer cannot, I think, be that the former is an "independent
expenditure" while the latter is a "coordinated expenditure"; that only
makes sense where the concern is, as per Buckley, quid pro quo corruption,
and when the candidate owns the newspaper, I don't see any reason to worry
about quid pro quo corruption.)
 
Eugene
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Bauer, Bob-WDC [mailto:RBauer@perkinscoie.com] 
Sent: Fri 10/24/2003 3:11 PM 
To: 'Frank Askin'; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: Freedom of the press




This is certainly a source of exposure under federal law.  Manipulation of 
the "newspaper" for political purposes by a candidate who owns the outlet 
and promotes his or her own candidacy would be subject to enforcement under 
appropriate state campaign finance provisions.  The First Amendment 
objection is predictable but would not necesarily be insurmountable. What 
would distinguish a "news" outlet like this, owned and used for 
electioneering purposes by a candidate, from a corporate or party newsletter

that is subject to regulation even it also serves in some respects First 
Amendment interests with whatever bona fide news coverage and commentary it 
also offers? 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Frank Askin [mailto:faskin@kinoy.rutgers.edu
<mailto:faskin@kinoy.rutgers.edu> ] 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 1:18 PM 
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu 
Subject: Freedom of the press 


  There is an article in this morning's Star-Ledger about the owner of a 
weekly newspaper in rural New Jersey who is a candidate for town council. 
He uses his newspaper to promote the candidacy of himself and his running 
mate and excludes any statements, etc. from his opponents.  Presumably, the 
newspaper is a corporation, and NJ campaign finance law does limit the 
amount of in kind contributions by a corporation to candidates. 
   There has been some recent discussion on the list serve about the 
so-called "Murdoch" exception to campaign finance law and whether that is 
constitutionally required.  I think some have suggested that the press 
clause of the First Amendment does not give the press any greater speech 
rights than anyone else.    The NJ law does not have a specific exemption 
for media corporations.  Does any one think his media corporation can be 
prosecuted for making excess corporate contributions to his campaign, or is 
it protected by the First Amendment press clause? 

Prof. Frank Askin 
Constitutional Litigation Clinic 
Rutgers Law School/Newark 
(973) 353-5687