On January 19, 2012, the 9th circuit issued an opinion in Farris v Seabrook, 11-35620, a case over Washington State’s $800 limit on contributions to political committees making expenditures in a recall campaign. The 9th circuit agreed with the U.S. District Court that the law should be enjoined. The 9th circuit wrote that there “is only a tenuous relationship with candidates.” Recalls in Washington, as in most states, simply put on the ballot the question of whether a particular office-holder should be recalled. They do not simultaneously bring about an election campaign over who should fill the vacant seat. Just as no one can bribe an initiative, neither can anyone bribe a recall.
On the other hand, on February 17, a Texas State Court of Appeals blocked a recall from going ahead, even though the recall drive had enough valid signatures, because an incorporated church had sponsored the recall petition. Cook v Tom Brown Ministries, 08-11-367-cv. Here is the 27-page opinion, which does not discuss the constitutionality of Texas’ law forbidding corporate contributions to a recall committee, except to say that Citizens United v FEC does not invalidate the Texas restriction. The Texas decision does not mention Farris v Seabrook or any other precedents over whether contributions to a recall committee may be limited.
Texas changed the law last year, to remove the restriction on corporate expenditures, while retaining the restriction on corporate contributions. This had been done in specific response to Citizens United v FEC.
The case appears to have been decided on narrower grounds, that a treasurer had not been appointed for a campaign committee, and similar matters.
What happened was that there had been an initiative drive to change a city ordinance, which was approved by the voters; the city council then overrode the ordinance change, with the mayor John Cook, casting the tie-breaking vote. The recall was in response to that action. It would be interesting whether the particular provisions relating to recall elections are constitutional; if a corporation may support passage of a measure, but then if an elected official oveturns the measure, the only choice is to re-pass the measure again.
There are probably also tie-ins to the Tom DeLay case, with the Texas court referring to decisions made in that case.
How EVIL lunatic is some or ALL of the New Age powermad Texas regime ???
Too much Sun, NOT enough water ???
1 –
Unless the corporation is “expending” money on something the campaign itself would never expend funds on (and if that were so, why would a corporation make such an expenditure?) then the expenditure frees the campaign up to spend the same amount of money on something else that it would otherwise not have been able to afford. The expenditure has precisely the same desired political effect as a direct contribution to the campaign.
The Citizens United decision was rendered by right wing, activist, corporatist jurists, and those who defend that horrible decision twist their logic like so many pretzels in doing so.
A fourth grader would chuckle at the flimsy “expenditure”/”contribution” distinction, but yet you and Richard keep trotting it out in defense of Citizens United.
The CU opinion is brain dead ignorant about the Of Corporations chapter in Blackstone’s Commentaries – Book I, Chap. 18.
Artificial *persons* in English law go WAY back.
Any such artificial person has ONLY the *rights, privileges and immunities* in the LAW that creates such person.
i.e. such LAW can totally restrict the incomes and outgoes of such artificial persons.
i.e. the 1st Amdt applies ONLY to HUMAN persons — much too difficult for the SCOTUS robot party hacks to understand.
i.e. the Ben Franklin printing press
the Patrick Henry speeches, etc.
How EVIL, big and bad are the corporations in Texas ??? — somehow worse than in other States ???
#3, the expenditure/contribution distinction was made by the US Supreme Court in Buckley v Valeo in 1976. Most experts believe that Justice Brennan wrote that part of that decision. There are many critics of the distinction, but those critics ought to be attacking Buckley v Valeo.
#3 Perhaps the corporation doesn’t agree with the presentation being made by the campaign, but it really doesn’t matter what its motivation is.
If you wanted to convince people to vote for Lyndon Larouche (or some other candidate), and choose to expend your own money on that effort, what right do I have through the power of the state, to tell you that you can’t do so except through a contribution to the “Official” campaign?
6 –
Jimbo, your first comment is, typically I’m afraid, nonsensical.
As for your question, when you tell me by what right the government has to tell me I’m individually limited to $2,500 per candidate per campaign, as it currently does, you’ll have your answer.
5 –
Answer the question you’ve been ducking, and we’ll talk.
#7 There is no limit on how much money you may spend advocating the election of a candidate in a federal election, so long as that expenditure is made without cooperation or coordination with the candidate’s campaign. You are of course limited to contributing $2500 to the campaign.
As a hypothetical, we’ll say that you have $10,000,000; and you support the election of Lyndon Larouche. You can contribute $2500 to the Larouche for President Campaign. You can spend $10,000,000 advocating the election of Larouche.
Why would you want to do this? As a legal question it doesn’t really matter. Maybe you simply want to spend your money. Maybe you want to have greater control of how the money is spent.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#anchor257909
Read section on Independent Expenditures.
8 –
8 – As usual, your answer to a simple question is nonresponsive and evasive.
By what right does the government tell me that I can’t give more than $2,500 to a candidate’s campaign? You say “of course” I can’t. Why?
As I said previously, the answer to that question will give you the answer to your question about what power of the state empowers it to tell you that you have to funnel larger contributions through a Super PAC.
5 –
Do you really want to emulate Jim, evading simple questions? Why? I’ll ask you yet again. Is the prohibition of the sale and purchase of heroin an impingement on First Amendment rights to free speech?
#9 I suggest that you read (or re-read) the US Supreme Court decision in Buckley v Valeo.
The simple answer is that Congress imposed a limit on contributions to candidate campaigns, and the Supreme Court said that limit was constitutional ($1000 then, inflated to $2500 now).
The court ruled that the authority under the Constitution to legislate in this area, and that their legislation did not violate the 1st Amendment.
Congress has the legal right to restrict your contribution to $2500 per candidate. They don’t have to impose such limit, but they may, and they have.
In the same opinion, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not restrict independent expenditures, because this would be an infringement on your 1st Amendment right to effectively participate in political discourse.
Congress does not have the legal right to restrict your expenditure of your funds in political speech, so long as that expenditure is not done in cooperation or coordination with the candidate.
Direct = IN-direct
Much too difficult for SCOTUS MORONS to understand.
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-118.htm
Blackstone – Of Corporations
Way beyond the brain dead ignorant SCOTUS MORONS.
Ahhhhhh….
So there you have it Jim. The answer to your question. All Congress has to do is raise the legal limit from $2,500 to…what would satisfy you…a half billion dollars?
Thanks for finally acknowledging that the government indeed has the power to restrict the amount of “free speech” that can be purchased.
There now…was that so very difficult for you?
#13 Buckley v Valeo says that you are wrong.
Congress may not limit your independent expenditures.
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …” They may not limit the subject matter; they may not limit how you disseminate your message; or how widely you disseminate it.
And Buckley v Valeo also suggests that there might be a limit to how low Congress could restrict your contribution.