John Stossel is ABC News' Co-Anchor of "20/20" and New York Times best-selling author of Give Me A Break & Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity. His "Give Me a Break" commentaries take a skeptical look at a wide array of issues, such as education, the economy, parenting, and more.
RECENT POSTS
JOHN STOSSEL'S CATEGORIES
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Free Speech Watch
09/09/2009 1:18 PM
A lower court agreed with the F.E.C.’s position, saying that the sole purpose of the documentary was “to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world and that viewers should vote against her.”
That's right. It is apparently illegal to "inform the electorate" about a candidate's fitness for office ... if you are a corporation or use corporate money to inform the electorate within 30 days of an election. The film was made by a non-profit corporation, Citizen's United, and thus ran afoul of McCain-Feingold. The Court already heard arguments on the case earlier this year. The Times explains why the Court took the unusual step of scheduling a second round of arguments:
At the first Supreme Court argument in March, a government lawyer, answering a hypothetical question, said the government could also make it a crime to distribute books advocating the election or defeat of political candidates so long as they were paid for by corporations and not their political action committees. That position seemed to astound several of the more conservative justices, and there were gasps in the courtroom.
The Institute for Justice, which filed a brief in support of Citizens United, issued a press release listing ten books that the government could ban if the Supreme Court agrees with their reasoning. IJ attorney Steve Simpson says, “Every one of these books takes a position on a candidate’s qualifications for office...and every one was published by a corporation.”
Here are the first three:
1. Dude, Where’s My Country?, Michael Moore, 2003 (“There is probably no greater imperative facing the nation than the defeat of George W. Bush in the 2004 election.”)
2. Bush Must Go, Bill Press, 2004 (“If you need any ammunition for voting against George Bush, here they are: the top ten reasons why George Bush must be denied a second term.”)
3. My Dad, John McCain, Meghan McCain, 2008 (“There are a few things you need to know about my dad, and one of them is that he would make a great president.”)
No wonder the Supreme Court called for a second round of arguments. I hope the Supremes reprimand Senators McCain, Feingold, and other arrogant legislators for their assault on free speech.
As I've reported in the past, campaign finance "reform" like McCain-Feingold does little more than give bureaucrats the power to decide which kind of political speech is acceptable:
September 9, 2009 in Free Speech, Politics | Permalink | Share | User Comments (17)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
John, you are crazy we have free speech- unless we talk about politics, unless we talk about religion, unless we talk about non-revisionist history, unless we talk in contrary to prevailing "science", unless we offend anyone, unless it is to children, or unless with disagree with Obama. And by exercising our right we futhermore agree that the government can tap us, surveille us, or put us into "free speech zones".
Posted by: Ed | Sep 9, 2009 1:53:28 PM
Here here.
Posted by: Brian Williams | Sep 9, 2009 2:18:57 PM
One of the many dumb pieces of legislation to pass congress. This time, it is grossly unconstitutional.
Posted by: JennyC | Sep 9, 2009 2:27:07 PM
"Definition of an honest politician - one who stays bought."
As long as our government has unlimited power, and as long as money determines election results, we'll have people using money to influence the government. Campaign limit laws only introduce bureaucrats and lawyers into the flow.
Limit the power of government to limit influence.
Posted by: D Bell | Sep 9, 2009 2:36:27 PM
Campaign finance laws aren't just about freedom of speech - and neither is the first amendment.
It's also about freedom to peaceably assemble and petition the government for grievances.
If you can't pool your resources - money - and assemble a coalition to fight against the government, the first amendment has been trashed.
Point is it's not just speech. It's the right to get together to accomplish something.
Posted by: Dan Litwin | Sep 9, 2009 6:33:43 PM
>>and thus ran afoul of McCain-Feingold
Isn't that the McCain WHO WAS THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE?
What a MORON!
Posted by: dude | Sep 9, 2009 7:37:15 PM
Won't you be be upset if the Supreme Court overturns over 100 years of campaign finance precedents?
Because that would make them ACTIVIST JUDGES!
Posted by: dude | Sep 9, 2009 7:40:28 PM
"Free" TV airwaves should be monitored. Even Rupert Murdoch throws up when he watches Fox News.
Posted by: Wake_Up | Sep 9, 2009 7:42:43 PM
I agree!
Only the richest companies' opinions matter.
We can finally remove the citizens from politics, and maybe they'll stop asking me for donations.
Posted by: abe | Sep 9, 2009 7:42:58 PM
" "Free" TV airwaves should be monitored."
Heil, Hitler!
Posted by: lee | Sep 10, 2009 4:36:59 AM
Repeat b.s. over and over enough, it's easy to convince the lemmings that it's perfectly acceptable to invade, overthrow, and occupy a sovereign country.
Posted by: Wake_Up | Sep 10, 2009 9:20:08 AM
Too bad they disreguarded the law and she STILL lost!!!
Posted by: jafo | Sep 10, 2009 5:42:50 PM
john. i'd like to know what you think of cbs taking off "the reagans" in 2003 due to its controversy. sure, it wasn't exactly fair and balanced but some criticisms were true. was it right for cbs to take it off the air because of conservative criticisms, even if some things were false, or some criticisms were exaggerated? yes or no? i would love for you to blog about this or at least answer my question. thanks.
Posted by: john please answer my question | Sep 13, 2009 3:08:40 PM
What is it with you trolls?
Stossel brings up some good points with campaign finance laws, but instead of challenging or agreeing with the content of his video, all you can do is:
Bash Republicans
Bash war
Bash activist judges
Bash corporations
Bash Fox News
Can't you at least show some intelligence regarding the issue at hand?! Are there any points you agree with, and if not can you explain why you disagree? If not, go vandalize some other blog.
Robert
Posted by: Robert | Sep 14, 2009 12:13:43 PM
To JohnPleaseAnswer...:
The short answer is:
I think libertarians would not want to censor "the reagans" or any other speech. If your question is one of partisanship, this answer is easy. A Libertarian wouldn't favor any party over another, even our own.
The longer answer is:
This issue can be complicated by issues of public danger, and slander/libel. While we all support free speech, we do need appropriate limits on speech--that kind of speech which is untrue and does harm to people such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. That being said, I think that most any truth or untruth in the political world should not be censored. Republican, Democratic, Libertarian or Other. The public must discern the truth, and punish the dishonest with their votes. Additionally, if libel laws are broken, where someone lies and causes harm by said lie, they can sue.
Posted by: Robert | Sep 14, 2009 1:36:35 PM
Bash Republicans
Bash war
Bash activist judges
Bash corporations
Bash Fox News
========================================
And conservatives:
Bash Democrats
Bash peace movements
Bash activist judges
Bash individual rights against corportate rights
Bash Mainstream media
So, your point is what? That the vast majority of people are partisan, seek support for their positions, and disregard dissenting opinions. Both conservatives and liberals are guilty of this...which is why I choose to stay independent...As for the article...I could care less about the ruling...the movie is trash...A conclusion is made and then supporting facts are sought...whether it should aired or not I could care less..In the larger view of free speech it is meaningless...
Posted by: indy_voter | Sep 19, 2009 11:10:25 AM
indy,
If you can't understand the point I made about speaking to the issue verses bashing, you really should find a less intelligent blog to harass.
As for anyone's free speech (but apparently not your own) being "meaningless"...our founders are rolling over in their graves. Shame on you.
Posted by: Robert | Sep 19, 2009 3:26:44 PM
Post a comment
