1. The First Amendment And Campaign Finance

2. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of griev ances.

3. How Does it Affect Us? We are guaranteed the right to express and be exposed to wide range of opinions and views whether spoken or written. Includes: media, sit ins, advertisements, art work Early years…speaking from soap box, printed speech, and gathering in same location Today includes social media, blogs Media outlets may be owned by corporations

4. Limits to Free Speech Distinction between content and the means whereby expressed Content: limited when incitement to violence or obscene with no social redeeming value Content: libel, slander, copyright violation, fraudulent commercial Means: reasonable with time, place, and manner Means: noise ordinances, anti-littering laws, limits to occupying public spaces

5. Free Speech can be Unpopular Racist or sexist statements Quote from Federal Judge: “The best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country” is in tolerating hateful speech.

6. Freedom of the Press Media spend large sums in candidate elections Media can play decisive role through news coverage Question: Should media be restricted as others are in campaign finance regulation? Media becoming politicized Fox MSNBC One can buy news outlet to effect an election

7. Political Speech and Money Some say “Money is Speech” and limits to such is unconstitutional Others ridicule that money and speech are synonymous Is billion-dollar corporation spending unlimited amounts on election the same as a single person speaking in a public meeting. Elections are expensive Should special interest groups spend unlimited sums to drown out the speech of others?

8. Questions before Considering Is there significant or governmental interest that justifies the limitation? Is the limitation appropriate or the least restrictive means of protecting the governmental interest? Does the limitation apply too broadly to situations where the governmental interest is not in play?

9. US Supreme Court Decisions Buckley vs. Valeo 1976 Upheld federal limits on campaign contributions Ruled spending money to influence elections is form of constitutionally protected free speech Struck down FEC limits on spending on campaigns but upheld limits on contributions Court narrowed and then upheld disclosure provisions Struck down allowing Congress to appoint FEC members

10. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce 1990 Held that Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which prohibited corporations from using treasury money to make independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in election, did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Upheld the restriction on corporate speech “Corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections” Corporations may use a segregated fund for donations.

11. Citizen’s United v. FEC 2010 Reversed provision of McCain-Feingold (BCRA) that had prohibited unions, corporations and for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. Overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce Partially overruled McConnell v FEC 2003 Upheld public disclosure of sponsors of advertisements

12. McCutcheon, et al. v. FEC 2014 Struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined. Congress may target only a specific type of corruption “quid pro quo” Spending large sum on candidate not sign of influence Over turned Buckley decision on aggregate limits Did not affect the base limits on individual contributions to candidates, PACs or party committees

13. Questions Should the press, however defined, have different rights than individuals? What are the limits of First Amendment rights when it comes to associations of individuals? Should the preacher of a tax-exempt church be allowed to urge parishioners to vote for a particular political party? What is a “religious organization” anyway? Should there be limits on the quantity of speech?