lawyerlee
06-25-2007, 08:39 PM
It should be interesting to see how this ruling affects the next national election.
I am a strong proponent of free speech, but I personally take great issue with the notion that money equals speech. However, this is certainly not the first time the Court has ruled in a way that draws this connection, and it probably won't be the last.
It simply doesn't make sense that limiting the use of a candidate's name in advertising close to an election limits anyone's ability to put out ads on an issue. That isn't suppressing speech on issues at all. It seems to me the more conservative justices on the court only care about the First Amendment when it affects the ability of people with money and influence to get their way. Cause Roberts certainly didn't care about free speech in the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0626/p10s01-usju.html).
Finally, I flat out don't agree with setting forth a new rule on this question. I must agree with the dissenters when they ask what justification there is for not following precedent. It boggles my mind.
The majority certainly succeeded in muddying up the waters of what is and is not permitted with this nutty decision. :(
Court eases rules on political advertising (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-25-scotus-political-ads_N.htm)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court sided with conservatives on Monday and issued a ruling that could make businesses, unions and other interest groups more influential in next year's presidential election.
The court's 5-4 ruling, which illustrated the influence of the two conservative justices President George W. Bush has put on the court, could become a significant factor in the presidential primaries in early 2008. Its effect is to give interest groups louder and more influential voices in the closing days before those contests as well as in the November general election.
The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution, the court said.
"Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "Where the First Amendment (of the Constitution) is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor." The First Amendment guarantees several basic freedoms for Americans, including speech.
Other related articles:
5-4 Supreme Court Weakens Curbs on Pre-Election TV Ads (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500548.html?hpid=topnews)
Supreme Court Leans Conservative (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062501047.html?hpid=topnews)
Court clips campaign-finance law (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0626/p01s01-uspo.html)
I am a strong proponent of free speech, but I personally take great issue with the notion that money equals speech. However, this is certainly not the first time the Court has ruled in a way that draws this connection, and it probably won't be the last.
It simply doesn't make sense that limiting the use of a candidate's name in advertising close to an election limits anyone's ability to put out ads on an issue. That isn't suppressing speech on issues at all. It seems to me the more conservative justices on the court only care about the First Amendment when it affects the ability of people with money and influence to get their way. Cause Roberts certainly didn't care about free speech in the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0626/p10s01-usju.html).
Finally, I flat out don't agree with setting forth a new rule on this question. I must agree with the dissenters when they ask what justification there is for not following precedent. It boggles my mind.
The majority certainly succeeded in muddying up the waters of what is and is not permitted with this nutty decision. :(
Court eases rules on political advertising (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-25-scotus-political-ads_N.htm)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court sided with conservatives on Monday and issued a ruling that could make businesses, unions and other interest groups more influential in next year's presidential election.
The court's 5-4 ruling, which illustrated the influence of the two conservative justices President George W. Bush has put on the court, could become a significant factor in the presidential primaries in early 2008. Its effect is to give interest groups louder and more influential voices in the closing days before those contests as well as in the November general election.
The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution, the court said.
"Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "Where the First Amendment (of the Constitution) is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor." The First Amendment guarantees several basic freedoms for Americans, including speech.
Other related articles:
5-4 Supreme Court Weakens Curbs on Pre-Election TV Ads (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500548.html?hpid=topnews)
Supreme Court Leans Conservative (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062501047.html?hpid=topnews)
Court clips campaign-finance law (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0626/p01s01-uspo.html)