Silencing Free Speech
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
While the efforts of some politicians to "freeze out '527' groups" partly explains the silence of these independent political organizations during this election season ["Obama, McCain Aim to Curb '527s'," news story, May 14], there is another significant cause: the chilling effect of campaign finance laws on independent political speech.
This issue is at the heart of SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, currently in D.C. federal court. SpeechNow.org is an independent citizens group that wants to run ads that support or oppose the election of federal candidates based on their support for the First Amendment. But under federal campaign finance law, it is subject to a host of burdensome regulations, including limits on the size of the contributions it can receive. Failure to abide by these limits can lead to massive civil penalties. As a result of this threat, SpeechNow.org and groups like it have been silenced.
These laws are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has already held that individuals can spend unlimited amounts of their own money on independent speech about candidates. It only makes sense that groups of individuals should enjoy that same right. If the D.C. court agrees, citizen groups such as SpeechNow.org will be able to reclaim their place in the political debate.
PAUL SHERMAN
Institute for Justice
Arlington
The writer is one of the attorneys representing SpeechNow.org.
