Law Student Needs Help with First Amendment Question! (calling all constitutional lawyers)

[Lauratealeaf]

My daughter has a question as she prepares for her finals tomorrow in her First Amendment class. It is relating to campaign finance law and government restrictions on expendutures and contributions in the 1976 case of Buckley vs. Valeo.

She doesn't understand the difference between individual contributions to candidates and independant individual expenditures relative to a clearly identified candidate. It seems that the court allows a limit on contributions but doesn't allow a limit on expenditures.

She doesn't know how to tell the difference between individual contributions and individual expenditures. Also, she is confused about the difference between soft and hard money in regard to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

She is really hoping she doesn't get this question on the exam but wants to be prepared.

[Jean S]

Can you help here?

[Lauratealeaf]

Greg Jerrett is discussing the issue right now but it is hard to get a definitive answer.

[FormerACLUmember]

The answer is complex and onerous, but can be summarized as follows:

The law applies only to Republicans, never to democrats.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I am no lawyer but the difference to me seems that contributions go to directly to the candidate for his campaign to direct how it is spent. Supposedly this was to prevent a wealthy individual from "buying" a candidate. However, now they buy entire parties (as evidenced by 92% of donations over $1,000,000 in 2002 going to the Rat party).

Expenditures by an independent third party on behalf of a particular candidate (or issue) are NOT (and I believe cannot be) directed by the candidate. It is an extension of your right to get up on a stump and extoll the virtues of your candidate without their knowledge except you now use a loudspeaker, a banner behind an airplane, newspaper, radio, or television ads.

Where most have a HUGE problem with the CFR as passed is that it "allows" a citizen with $1,000,000 to spend on advertising to do so without restriction. However, if 1 million citizens with only $1 to spend to get together and buy the exact same ad.

Where is the sense in that?

[Blood of Tyrants]

Let's try this again.

However, if 1 million citizens with only $1 to spend to get together and try to buy the exact same ad, the law prohibits it.

[dano1]

I'm not a lawyer, but I found the following paper on the Internet:

faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Mary%20Lovely/ Campaign%20Finance%20Reform.pdf

Apparently the difference is that it's constitution free speech to spend on the campaign, (like Soros), but the money can't be given directly to the campaign because that has the appearance of buying the election.

"In 1976, in the case of Buckley vs. Valeo, the United
States Supreme Court declared significant portions of FECA unconstitutional. In
particular, the spending limits on federal campaigns, the limits on independent
expenditures on behalf of a candidate, and limits on how much of a candidate’s
personal money could be spent on a campaign were thrown out as violations of
free speech. Essentially, the Court’s position was that the government did not
have an interest in limiting the amount of money spent on campaigns because that
money was generally used to advance political speech, not buy votes. “Presumably
dollars are not stuffed in ballot boxes…The mediating factor that turns money
into votes is speech. More money leads to more communications supporting the
candidate. More communications supporting the candidate means more votes…”7The
court did uphold the limits on the size of individual donations in the interest
of “preventing the appearance of corruption.” Unlimited donations could perhaps
create the appearance that large donors were purchasing an election, which could
cause people to lose faith in the government. The end result of the Buckley
decision was that “Congress and state legislatures can limit the amount an
individual or entity can give to a campaign and can require disclosure of
campaign donors and expenditures. However, Congress cannot limit the amount a
campaign spends, nor can it limit the amount individuals or organizations spend
on their own to support a candidate’s campaign so long as these expenditures are
made independent of the campaign."

[Common Tator]

She doesn't know how to tell the difference between individual contributions and individual expenditures

There are two ways to support a candidate with money. The first is to contribute money to the candidates campaign. In that case the donor would write a check to the candidates campaign committee and the candidates or his agents would use that money to buy ads or pay campaign expenses. This method is a contribution to a candidates campaign. The candidates has responsibility for spending the money and can even refuse to take some contributions.

In the second method a person has some ads made for a candidate he favors and then pays to have them run. The candidate may not even know the ads were going to run. Thus it is not a contribution to a candidate since the candidate never sees the money. It is an expenditure on behalf of a candidate by another party. The candidate may not even want the ads run or even approve of what they say. There were independent ads run for Lazio and against HIllary in the 2000 Senate Race in New York.

There are at least two rich Democrats putting up millions that will be used in ads for the Democratic nominee for president and against George Bush in 2004. These independent orgainizations make will expenditures for ads.

Hard money consists of contributions to a candidate's campaign. Those contributions are spent by the candidate in his own behalf. Soft money is money raised by a political party and spent on the party and the parties candidates. Soft money is to be used to advocate positions on issues not candidates. But it is a distinction without a difference in practice

I have not read all the provisions of the CFR of 2002. I know it banned soft money. Soft money was money given to a national party for it to spend.

The obvious work around the soft money ban is to start and independent organizations not directly connected the party and then let it raise money to buy ads for candidates.

That is what Ickes and the Clintons are doing.

Everyone with a brain knew CFR 2002 was a joke... and could be easily skirted.

When they limited what candidates could spend, the party took over the job of raising and spending money. Now that the parties are limited they have started using independent organizations not connected to the party or the candidate.

As long as elected candidates write the campaign finance laws there will be loopholes.

[freedumb2003]

The fact you are asking this on a conservative board means it is speech thay makes me uncomfortable so you can't ask it.

;)

[dadokane]

why not ask her study group?

if this is a not hoax post, then somebody is in big trouble come tomorrow.

(from a lawyer)

[Tijeras_Slim]

None of this applies to money from Red China.

[diotima]

Ping!

[Betteboop]

It's not a hoax--her daughter is a law student---just try to help her--maybe she doesn't have a good study group!!

[Betteboop]

Can you help with this? Or maybe a lawyer you know can do it??
BB

[Jean S]

Thanks CT.

[Betteboop]

"Supposedly this was to prevent a wealthy individual from "buying" a candidate."

Too bad it can't keep wealthy candidates from buying an election!!!!

[jmstein7]

>She doesn't know how to tell the difference between individual contributions and individual expenditures.

Individual contributions: writing a check to "Senator Bill Frist", to the RNC, etc. so that THEY can spend the money in support of the candidate.

Individual expenditures: Spending $1000 to take out an ad in the newspaper telling people to vote for president Bush; spending $1000 to produce a television commercial telling people to vote for President Bush; etc.

>It seems that the court allows a limit on contributions but doesn't allow a limit on expenditures.

Correct.

Limiting contributions does not limit speech and violate the First Amendment (according to the Court). The effect on "freedom of association" or "political discussion" is minimal.

On the other hand, limits on expenditures, though "content-neutral", are unconstitutional restrictions of "political expression". This restriction on free expression, though rationally related to the goal of "equalizing" the ability of individuls to influence elections, is excessive. The end (equal influence) does not justify the restrictive means, and the First Amendment is violated.

[Mich0127]

I am a second year law student and i am trying to find you some info on your question
Has your daughter looked into LEXIS-NEXIS or Westlaw? She can do a case brief, which might help answer her question

Meanwhile..I'll keep looking

[Lauratealeaf]

why not ask her study group?

if this is a not hoax post, then somebody is in big trouble come tomorrowR>

(from a lawyer)

I asked her that. Her study group consists of females and they just didn't want to get into it. They are betting (hoping) that the question is not asked on the test. My daughter could not do that so she called me. I am not a lawyer but she knew I would do what I could to help.

[Lauratealeaf]

I am a second year law student and i am trying to find you some info on your question

Has your daughter looked into LEXIS-NEXIS or Westlaw? She can do a case brief, which might help answer her question

Meanwhile..I'll keep looking

Thanks. She is also a second year law student. I will tell her.