Is lobbying free speech?

[Bluesplayer]

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The only way to clean up corruption in government as well as establish campaign finance reform is to remove the money. As a private citizen, I am limited in how much I can legally donate to candidates. Why can't those same limits apply to corporations, associations and PACs? I've heard the argument that such restrictions would violate the 1st amendment, but the right to contribute up to the legal limit would still exist; they'd just have to be satisfied with having the same amount of influence as I do.

Make no mistake - this is all about a class-based right of access to policy makers, not free speech. I'm starting to lean toward government financing of campaigns, the elimination of lobbyists - both as financiers and writers of laws, and the end of politicians' concerns about reelection finance.

The public owns the airwaves. Let the candidates use our airways for free in a regulated way in their campaigns. Appear in more debates, and let everyone see who their votes are going to.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Buckley v. Valeo (sp?)

money = speech

[StClone]

5. Yes (But I don't agree with it.)

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0424_0001_ZS.html

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (Act), as amended in 1974, (a) limits political contributions to candidates for federal elective office by an individual or a group to $1,000 and by a political committee to $5,000 to any single candidate per election, with an over-all annual limitation of $25,000 by an individual contributor; (b) limits expenditures by individuals or groups "relative to a clearly identified candidate" to $1,000 per candidate per election, and by a candidate from his personal or family funds to various specified annual amounts depending upon the federal office sought, and restricts over-all general election and primary campaign expenditures by candidates to various specified amounts, again depending upon the federal office sought; (c) requires political committees to keep detailed records of contributions and expenditures, including the name and address of each individual contributing in excess of $10, and his occupation and principal place of business if his contribution exceeds $100, and to file quarterly reports with the Federal Election Commission disclosing the source of every contribution exceeding $100 and the recipient and purpose of every expenditure over $100, and also requires every individual or group, other than a candidate or political committee, making contributions or expenditures exceeding $100 "other than by contribution to a political committee or candidate" to file a statement with the Commission; and (d) creates the eight-member Commission as the administering agency with recordkeeping, disclosure, and investigatory functions and extensive rulemaking, adjudicatory, and enforcement powers, and consisting of two members appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate, two by the Speaker of the House, and two by the President (all subject to confirmation by both Houses of Congress), and the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House as ex officio nonvoting members. Subtitle H of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (IRC), as amended in 1974, provides for public financing of Presidential nominating conventions and general election and primary campaigns from general revenues and allocates such funding to conventions and general election campaigns by establishing three categories: (1) "major" parties (those whose candidate received 25% or more of the vote in the most recent election), which receive full funding; (2) "minor" parties (those whose candidate received at least 5% but less than 25% of the votes at the last election), which receive only a percentage of the funds to which the major parties are entitled; and (3) "new" parties (all other parties), which are limited to receipt of post-election funds or are not entitled to any funds if their candidate receives less than 5% of the vote. A primary candidate for the Presidential nomination by a political party who receives more than $5,000 from private sources (counting only the first $250 of each contribution) in each of at least 20 States is eligible for matching public funds. Appellants (various federal officeholders and candidates, supporting political organizations, and others) brought suit against appellees (the Secretary of the Senate, Clerk of the House, Comptroller General, Attorney General, and the Commission) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the above statutory provisions on various constitutional grounds. The Court of Appeals, on certified questions from the District Court, upheld all but one of the statutory provisions. A three-judge District Court upheld the constitutionality of Subtitle H.

[Toots]

15. Then they can put a limit on our free speech?

The limit to my speech is $2000. but to a PAC there is no limit. I guess it is all in who you know and who you blow...

[stevebreeze]

16. that is NOT what Buckley says

I don't remember the distinction at the moment, but Buckley does not equate money with speech.

[BlueEyedSon]

18. From Wikipedia (re: B v. V):

Decision

In a lengthy per curiam decision, the court sustained the Act's limits on individual contributions, as well as the disclosure and reporting provisions and the public financing scheme. However, the limitations on campaign expenditures, on independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and on expenditures by a candidate from his personal funds were found to be constitutionally infirm in that they placed severe restrictions on protected expression and association, yet lacked any compelling countervailing government interest necessary to sustain them.

Criticism

Some argue that this precedent is incompatible with democracy, because it allows those with great wealth to effectively drown out the speech of those not able to influence election outcomes through large financial contributions. Organizations working to overturn Buckley include ReclaimDemocracy.org, the National Voting Rights Institute, and the Public Interest Research Groups. Justice Byron White, in dissent, argued that the entire law should have been upheld, in deference to Congress's greater knowledge and expertise on the issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.

[stevebreeze]

19. believe me I am no fan of the Buckley decision. My point was only

that money = speech is a gross mis-caricaturization of what the decision says.

[BlueEyedSon]

21. Is there a decision that more directly addresses the issue?

juat askin'...

[stevebreeze]

22. not to my knowledge, Buckley is the courts current stand.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. I tried to lobby a police officer once when I was stopped for

speeding... it wasn't pretty. Lobbying is bribery on steroids. The fact that it even exists is a testament to the flaws and weaknesses inherent in our government.

[necso]

3. It's not the speech part that troubles me.

One should be free to ask anything lawful from one's representatives (actual or potential).

It's the (other) acts (acts that can be inherent in the speech, given the (understood) nature of this speech): giving money and favors (or the explicit/implicit promise to do so) in return for (the expectation of) favors -- even if these are only things consistent with one's "philosophy", and no more.

There's some line where the acceptable crosses into the unacceptable -- and then into the (should-be) unlawful.

But this is a hard line to draw, and any line can be expected to be widely gamed in actual practice (principally by those with money and power), so enforcement will be difficult. And so maybe some form of public financing is the best solution.

I don't know, it's a difficult question. And one should be free to give as much of one's time as possible.

But corporate "personhood" is ridiculous, particularly in these days of hugely powerful international corporations.

[tn-guy]

4. Would you like real reform?

The problem with many people who cry for election reform is that what they really want to do is limit someone else's rights. Here are some proposed true reforms that would actually respect the constitution.

1. Require all campaigns to publicly disclose, in electronic format, all contributions within one week of receipt.

2. Limit contributions to actual persons, no contributions by corporations, none by PACs, no special interest groups. However; allow individuals to contribute as they wished.

3. Repeal McCain-Feingold - allow any person to say anything he or she wished to say for or against a candidate whenever that person wanted to say it. If that person wanted to put a sign up in his yard - OK. If he wanted to put a bumper sticker on his car - OK. If he wanted to make and hand out flyers - that's OK, too. If he wanted to buy time on his local radio station and run an ad - OK. If he wanted to take out a newspaper ad - OK. If he wanted to buy a network prime time ad - that's OK, too. In other words, we would allow free speech.

4. Impose the same sort of oversight, with the same criminal liability provisions, on campaign finances as Sarbanes-Oxley does on companies.

[ProudDad]

11. Your suggestions wouldn't work

It would be more of the same -- the rich have the loudest megaphone.

The only difference your suggestions would make is that the campaign contributions from the rich would no longer be deductable (as they are now -- advertising/marketing expense by corporations).

Since the payback on this legalized bribary is so high (like $1M donated for $10 Billion return), your suggestions would have NO real effect in changing the system of payola that IS the political system today.

The real solution is PUBLIC financing of elections along with forcing the media who are using OUR airwaves to allow all candidates for office equal time to present their views (as it used to be).

[StClone]

6. It will take a sharp legal mind

To separate "assembly" and "free speech." I think the individual entity rights of a corporation may be easier to disprove.

[banana republican]

7. One man one vote

one man $1000 (per candidate including Lobbyists, corporations, non-profits, etc.).

[Bluestar]

8. "Paid" Speech, not Free Speech n/t

[onenote]

14. so, a newspaper isn't "free" speech?

unless its given away (and the writers aren't paid for their work?)

nope.

onenote

[Eric J in MN]

9. Verbal lobbying is free speech. Gifts and campaign donations aren't.

No person should be allowed to buy a meal for Congressperson or pay for a trip for Congressman.

[beaconess]

10. May be - but it definitely falls within the right to petition our govt

Lobbying per se is not wrong - it's actually a wonderful thing. People have every right to petition their government for redress. The problem is that it's been usurped by big money.

All kinds of lobbyists operate on the Hill and most are hard-working, decent and honest.

Some of our greatest achievements as a nation have come as a result of lobbying. For example, the great pieces of civil rights legislation (Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Fair Housing Act, etc.) would never have been passed were it not for the tremendous work of civil rights lobbyists such as the NAACP's Clarence Mitchell (known as the "Lion in the Lobby" and the "101st Senator" because he was so dedicated and effective). But these people got what they wanted not by lining the pockets of the legislators. They appealed to their intellect and their hearts and eventually prevailed.

Abramoff and his crowd have spit on the grave of these great men and women by behaving like pimps and making the general public think that all lobbyists are loike them.

[radio4progressives]

12. Reclaim the Bill of Rights and Abolish Corporate Personhood!

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

(snip)

But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings.

We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal "persons" effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.

(snip)

====================

Where it all began:

Santa Clara Blues: Corporations vs democracy


http://reclaimdemocracy.org/pdf/primers/santa_clara_blues.pdf

In 1886 the Supreme Court justices were Samuel F. Miller, Stephen J. Field, Joseph P. Bradley, John M. Harlan, Stanley Matthews, William B. Woods, Samuel Blatchford, HOrace Gray, and Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite. Never heard of any of them? Thse men subjected African Americans to a century of Jim Crow discrimination; they made corporations into a vehicle for the wealthy elite to control the economy and the government, they vastly increased the power of the Supreme Court itself over elected government officials. How quaint that they are fogotten names.

cont..

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/pdf/primers/santa_clara_blues.pdf

page 5 (pdf)

[rman]

13. Free? No, it is very costly.

So it's very hard for people with little money to compete with it.

[stevebreeze]

17. the real answer is to take the leverage out of lobbyists

with public funding of campaigns. Of course the public will not accept a free ride for politicians but the will and have accepted Clean Money reform/ This has passed in Maine,Arizona and a couple of other states.
How it works is candidates agree to this system and promise to forgo regular fundraiseing. They then raise $5 donations for a set number of constituents, to qualify for public funds.

This eliminates the hold that lobbyists have on politicians. It frees up immeasurable time now spent fund raising. Most importantly it puts citizens on a level playing field.

Read more at Public Campaign http://www.publicampaign.org/

What we also need is someone credible to champaign campaign reform, I would suggest that Russ Feingold is the perfect candidate to do so.

[leftofthedial]

20. no

and corporations aren't people

and money is not free speech