I have to disagree with the point made about press corporations having a "special status recognized in the First Amendment." There is no special status granted to any category of speaker or user of the press.
"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."
At the risk of channeling Justice Scalia, the term "the press" is unlikely to have referred to press corporations, since corporations were a rarity in 18th Century America. Television and radio were entirely unknown. Thus, we must resort to interpretation of the text. We can agree or disagree on whether its protection for "freedom . . . of the press" warrants distinguishing potential criminal liability for the corporate press, multimedia conglomerates, or the incorporated corner pet store, or a nonprofit corporation devoted to [pick your favorite cause for the betterment of society] if they laud or criticize a candidate for federal office. A wealthy nonprofit can have the same "distorting" effect on an election by spending money as any other category of speaker.
Note, that the Amendment provides no express protection for views expressed other than through speech or the press, but no one among us would have a problem interpreting the text to include a handwritten note or letter.
John J. White, Jr.
white@lfa-law.com
(425) 822-9281 ext. 321
The contents of this message and any attachments may contain confidential information and be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or other applicable protection. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, please notify the sender and promptly delete the message. Thank you for your assistance.
Tax Advice Notice: IRS Circular 230 requires us to advise you that, if this communication or any attachment contains any tax advice, the advice is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties. A taxpayer may rely on professional advice to avoid federal tax penalties only if the advice is reflected in a comprehensive tax opinion that conforms to stringent requirements. Please contact us if you have any questions about Circular 230 or would like to discuss our preparation of an opinion that conforms to these IRS rules.
-----Original Message-----
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Maurer
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:28 PM
To: Frank Askin; Sean Parnell; election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] 12 Months After: The Effect of Citizens United
But individuals are also not given special status in the First Amendment
and the First Amendment says nothing about individuals one way or the
other.
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Askin [mailto:faskin@kinoy.rutgers.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:25 PM
To: Sean Parnell; Bill Maurer; election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] 12 Months After: The Effect of Citizens United
Press corporations are no more "people" than other corporations, but
their special status is recognized in the First Amendment, which says
nothing about not abridging the freedom of other corporations to speak
OR try to influence the electoral process.. FRANK
Prof. Frank Askin
Distinguished Professor of Law and Director
Constitutional Litigation Clinic
Rutgers Law School/Newark
(973) 353-5687>>> "Bill Maurer" <wmaurer@ij.org> 1/19/2011 3:58 PM >>>
What about for-profit press corporations? Are they people? And what
is
the "press"? Will we have a commission that determines whether an
association of people is sufficiently "press-y" to qualify for
personhood? And is the ability to vote the standard by which
personhood
is determined? The New York Times does not vote and it influences
election outcomes.
________________________________
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
[mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Sean
Parnell
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 9:07 AM
To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] 12 Months After: The Effect of Citizens United
Ran across the following in the Public Citizen report:
"Corporations are not people. They do not vote, and they should not be
able to influence
election outcomes. It is time to end the debate about the freedom of
speech of for-profit
corporations by amending the Constitution to make clear that
for-profit
corporations do
not have the same First Amendment rights as people and the press."
p. 27-28
Wondering how "Corporations are not people" apparently morphs into
'For-profit corporations are not people.' Are nonprofit corporations
people then? And of course there's the union issue, most of which
aren't
incorporated - are unions people? So confusing...
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp
124 S. West Street, #201
Alexandria, VA 22310
(703) 894-6800 phone
(703) 894-6813 direct
(703) 894-6811 fax
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
[mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Craig
Holman
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:18 AM
To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: [EL] 12 Months After: The Effect of Citizens United
Colleagues:
Public Citizen has just released a report documenting the aftermath of
the Citizens United decision on its one year anniversary --
Excerpted press release and link to the report follows:
A year has passed since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission, and the damage is clear,
according to a new Public Citizen report.
The tally:
* Outside groups are making record expenditures (more than four times
as
much spent in the 2010 midterm election cycle as in the last midterm
election cycle in 2006);
* Congressional staffs and lawmakers are intimidated by corporate
lobbyists like never before;
* Laws designed to protect the political system from the corrupting
influence of money have been rendered dead in 24 states; and
* Power has shifted in dozens of congressional seats in races won with
the help of undisclosed outside money.
The 76-page report, "12 Months After: The Effects of Citizens United
on
Elections and the Integrity of the Legislative Process," reveals a
year's worth of damage done by the court's decision is available at:
http://www.citizen.org/12-months-after.
Craig Holman, Ph.D.
Government Affairs Lobbyist
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Avenue NE
Washington, D.C. 20003
TEL: (202) 454-5182
CEL: (202) 905-7413
FAX: (202) 547-7392
Holman@aol.com
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law