[Vision2020] Campaign Finance Reform/ was Narcissist Nader May Run Attention

[Garrett Clevenger]

Chas asks:

"What about campaign finance reform can be construed
as a violation of first amendment rights?"


>From what I know about the minority opinion of the
Supreme Court ruling on this, they say it violates
"free speech" because it limits the ability of people
to express their speech.  That is, by setting donation
limits, and how that money can be spent (on
advertising, etc)  the court says Congress has
abridged the freedom of speech.

Would they say the same thing about "noise" limits in
noise ordinances?  If not, that speaks volumes about
their priorities.  Money (campaign donations) is more
important than actual words people say, if said words
are "loud, raucous or boisterous" as our new noise
ordinance states. But then again, it's my opinion that
our NO is illegal and probably would be overturned if
challenged correctly, but not involving the same
argument the majority Supreme Court opinion was based
on when they upheld at least certain regulations of
campaign finance.


Here's a quote from
http://www.opensecrets.org/newsletter/ce76/theology.asp

"Here is the Supreme Court's bottom line: Laws
limiting contributions by individuals to federal
candidates and political parties are constitutional,
while laws limiting expenditures made independently of
a candidate are not.

"Speech is protected under the First Amendment to the
Constitution;
Regulating money in politics is the same as regulating
speech;

"Speech can only be regulated if the government has a
"compelling interest" for that regulation

"Preventing real and apparent corruption of our
elected officials is a compelling interest;

"Contributions made to a candidate or political party
carry with them the danger of real or apparent
corruption and are subject to regulation;

"Money spent by an individual independently of a
candidate does not carry with it the same danger of
corruption, and, therefore, is not subject to
limitations;

"Laws which regulate speech must clearly set forth
what is prohibited and cannot be vague;

"To avoid vagueness problems, money spent
independently of a candidate will be considered
campaign-related only if it "expressly advocates" a
candidate's election or defeat."

Also, see:
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/29688.pdf


gclev