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]
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