9/11/2009

New Fox News Op-ed: Supreme Court Must Throw Out Campaign Finance Laws

My newest piece at Fox News starts this way:

Justice Anthony Scalia made a prediction in 2003 when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the McCain-Feingold law: "if history teaches us anything, [it] is that when you plug one means of expression, the money will go to whatever means of expression are left." The case the Supreme Court heard on Wednesday, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, shows that Justice Scalia was right.

The case focused on a movie released during the 2008 presidential campaign, "Hillary: The Movie." It doesn't explicitly advocate that Hillary Clinton be defeated in her bid for the presidency, but no one watching the movie will come to any other conclusion. Should the movie's costs count as a campaign expenditure? Campaign finance laws limit how much can be donated to a campaign, but if organizations such as Citizens United can make movies attacking the opposing candidate, what is the point of donation limits?

The Federal Election Commission's answer: ban the showing of the movie and the TV ads promoting the movie. . . .

Labels: , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home