![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Yes, I know that the entire universe is crying how suddenly the corporations will rule everything because of their vast amount of money they can spend without restriction on buying political adds, in their own name, at any time (as opposed to not within 30 days -60 days for Federal- of an election). As opposed to having to funneling that money through a PAC (Political Action Committee) as they do now. In other words, no significant change except that now small groups can organize without getting hammered by insanely complex laws.
Under McCain-Feingold and similar Federal laws (from the majority opinion):
Campaign finance regulations now impose "unique and complex rules" on "71 distinct entities." These entities are subject to separate rules for 33 different types of political speech. The FEC has adopted 568 pages of regulations, 1,278 pages of explanations and justifications for those regulations, and 1,771 advisory opinions since 1975. In fact, after this Court in WRTL [the 2007 Wisconsin Right to Life case] adopted an objective "appeal to vote" test for determining whether a communication was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, the FEC adopted a two-part, 11-factor balancing test to implement WRTL's ruling.
This regulatory scheme may not be a prior restraint on speech in the strict sense of that term, for prospective speakers are not compelled by law to seek an advisory opinion from the FEC before the speech takes place. As a practical matter, however, given the complexity of the regulations and the deference courts show to administrative determinations, a speaker who wants to avoid threats of criminal liability and the heavy costs of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak.
The ruling says that we will now have more political speech and surely that is good. I, unlike so many, trust that voters can actually judge political ads on their content and vote for what they think is right. After all, if money was all you needed to win election, why are we not speaking of President Ross Perot? Or Steve Forbes? Have some faith in the American people and move on.
Under McCain-Feingold and similar Federal laws (from the majority opinion):
Campaign finance regulations now impose "unique and complex rules" on "71 distinct entities." These entities are subject to separate rules for 33 different types of political speech. The FEC has adopted 568 pages of regulations, 1,278 pages of explanations and justifications for those regulations, and 1,771 advisory opinions since 1975. In fact, after this Court in WRTL [the 2007 Wisconsin Right to Life case] adopted an objective "appeal to vote" test for determining whether a communication was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, the FEC adopted a two-part, 11-factor balancing test to implement WRTL's ruling.
This regulatory scheme may not be a prior restraint on speech in the strict sense of that term, for prospective speakers are not compelled by law to seek an advisory opinion from the FEC before the speech takes place. As a practical matter, however, given the complexity of the regulations and the deference courts show to administrative determinations, a speaker who wants to avoid threats of criminal liability and the heavy costs of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak.
The ruling says that we will now have more political speech and surely that is good. I, unlike so many, trust that voters can actually judge political ads on their content and vote for what they think is right. After all, if money was all you needed to win election, why are we not speaking of President Ross Perot? Or Steve Forbes? Have some faith in the American people and move on.