Free Speech

Speak Freely

Limits on 'electioneering'


Two federal court cases may signal the demise of laws that restrict "electioneering communications" in the name of preventing political corruption.

In May a federal judge overturned a Florida law that required any group that so much as mentioned a candidate or ballot measure in a newsletter or on a website to register with the state as an "electioneering communications organization," file regular spending reports, and disclose its donors. Noting that "no court has ever upheld such a sweeping regulation of political speech," U.S. District Judge Stephan Mickle declined to break new ground. "While it is true that the legislature has the power to regulate elections," he wrote, "it does not have the power to regulate purely political discussions about elections."

And at the end of June, the U.S. Supreme Court scheduled a second round of oral arguments in a case involving an unflattering documentary about Hillary Clinton produced by the conservative group Citizens United. During the first round of arguments in March, several justices were openly skeptical that restrictions on the promotion and distribution of Hillary: The Movie—deemed an "electioneering communication" under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)—could be reconciled with the First Amendment. Now the Court wants to hear arguments about whether it should reconsider two key precedents dealing with campaign finance regulation.

One decision the Court plans to re-examine, issued in 1990, upheld a Michigan ban on the use of corporate funds to advocate for or against state candidates. The other decision, issued just six years ago, upheld BCRA's ban on "electioneering communications," defined as messages sponsored by unions, businesses, or nonprofit interest groups that mention a candidate for federal office and air close to an election. Since the Court already has restricted the reach of that provision to "express advocacy or its functional equivalent," it may now be prepared to overturn the ban completely.

NEXT: Just Say No

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on…the Bible’s books were written by people with very different mindsets…in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it’s literally a labyrinth, that’s no joke

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.