Posted on 09/22/2014 12:25:05 PM PDT by right-wing agnostic
Josh Blackman links to an interesting new speech by (retired) Justice Stevens about the Court’s campaign finance jurisprudence. Among other things, Justice Stevens argues that there ought to be little protection (or no protection?) for campaign contributions made across state lines. He begins . . .:
In the first sentence of his controlling opinion [in McCutcheon v. FEC] the Chief Justice correctly states that there “is no right more basic to our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.” 188 L. Ed.2d 468, 482. And in his concluding paragraph he correctly describes that right as “the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them.” Id., at 507 (Emphases added).
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“Is there a right to contribute to out-of-state elections?”
I don’t think so.
Yes.
As long as Yankee Democrat gets to vote on bills that affect me, I can darn well contribute to his opponent.
Why not? I get restriction placed on me by senators and representatives from other states.
Are you trying to say that free speech can’t cross state lines?
Justice Stevens was a Gerry Ford appointee, over the objections of conservatives. Stevens was about as liberal as they come, and proof positive of the truth that there is little difference between a liberal Democrat and a Gerry Ford “republican”.
Contributing to any candidate, anywhere, anytime, in any amount, is a right that should never be limited in a free society.
If they would just repeal the 17th amendment this would not be an issue.
When it’s right, it’s right, and it’s better than the plantation government telling us what we can think, and what we can do with our money.
If there wasn’t you couldn’t have national political parties... of course that makes me want to make it illegal.
You are correct, as Fr John McLaughlin used to say.
The idea of restricting free speech by state lines is stupid.
Meanwhile illegals can ignore national boundaries. Ignore laws. Ignore what they do not like.
I’m basically saying that I don’t know but would hazard a guess.
Ding ding, we have a winner.
Beyond mundane person-to-small-group speech, and the rare & unpredictable "viral meme", speech costs money. It requires some form of the Constitutionally-specified "press" (broadly defined) ... and presses cost money. Renting radio/TV time to an established audience costs money. Printing ads costs money. Websites & mass emails cost money.
If you want to "speak" to a sociopolitically meaningful number of people, that speech requires a press for mass distribution. Both "speech" and "press" are explicitly and sternly protected by the Constitution. One can "speak" by financially facilitating another's communications via mass-distribution devices in lieu of verbally repeating the message himself.
Yes, I understand how "big money" can distort political speech. Of course it can. If you want to talk to a LOT of people, it will take a lot of money; if you're willing to put your net worth into spreading a message, that's your choice - and you'll get a lot of influence as a result.
By your assertion, FreeRepublic.com’s funding could be limited to CA residents only. It’s political speech, and people are giving money from out-of-state to facilitate & expand its influence in politics (including elections).
Still sure you want to “go there”?
Republicans don't like the idea that TEA party conservatives have stopped giving to their PACs and are donating directly to conservative candidates they support, and they want to put a stop to it.
It’s’ a good notion and states should be very interested in those changes being made.
It dilutes the influence of the State (such as a small state) by the money and power in larger states.
All I said was that “I don’t think so.” What does that tell you?
“Is there a right to contribute to out-of-state elections?”
If Justice Stephens doesn’t like cross-state contributing, I suggest he STEP DOWN from the Court, get elected to Congress and pass a Constitutional Amendment to prevent those kinds of contributions.
...at least that’s how things are SUPPOSED to work in THIS COUNTRY.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.