As previously reported, last month a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., certified the Libertarian Party’s lawsuit over bequests to political parties to the full panel of active judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. That case is Libertarian National Committee v Federal Election Commission.
The issue arose in 2007, when the party learned it was the beneficiary of a bequest from an individual who had not even told the party that he was leaving a large gift to the party in his will. Federal campaign laws do not permit anyone to give more than $32,500 to a national committee of a political party in any calendar year. Therefore, the federal law prevented the party from receiving the bequest at once; federal law said the money had to remain in a bank account and the party was to receive part of it each year. The party sued the FEC in 2011, arguing that there is no fear of corruption when a party receives a large contribution from someone who is no longer living.
Federal law says that challenges to the constitutionality of the law that is being challenged must be settled by all the full-time judges of the D.C. Circuit. The U.S. District Court Judge who certified the case to the full appellate panel narrowed the scope of the question. The party wanted the case to be a general attack on contribution limits concerning deceased individuals, but the U.S. District Court Judge narrowed the scope to instances like this one, when the deceased individual had not told the party about his will. Now the party wants the full panel of appellate judges to consider the broader question as well as the narrower one. But the FEC is fighting to keep the case focused only on the narrower question. The final brief on the scope of the question will probably be filed by the end of July, and then the Appeals Court will decide whether to settle the broader question or just the narrower question.
The reason it matters if the deceased individual had told the party about his or her will is that, according to the government, an individual might still try to bribe a political party if he or she told the party that he would leave a large bequest, in order to corruptly persuade the party to take certain actions while the individual was still alive. But this scenario is obviously impossible if the individual did not even tell the party what is in the will.
Real campaign finance reform, and a return to self-government by flesh-bearing “persons:”
– Only individuals may make political contributions.
– Political contributions may be made only in cash, and not “in-kind.”
– All contributions to federal office seekers will of course be a matter of public record.
– Corporations may still advertise their products or services…only…in unlimited amounts. Hail capitalism!
– Contributions may be made only to candidates for which the contributor would be eligible to vote at the time of the contribution, by reason of legal residence. Since corporations, unions, PACS and Super PACs cannot vote, per force they are out of the business of providing financial support to candidates for political office. To that I say…”Tough shit!”
– Also prohibited from making inter-campaign transfers are…political campaigns! Why? They can’t vote.
– Candidates cannot carry “war chests” from campaign to campaign. Didn’t spend all your money? It gets surrendered to the treasury of the governmental unit which you ran to represent. Got debts at the end of the campaign? Pay them…you’re personally and legally obliged to do so (under my new world of campaign finance regulation).
– In return for these restrictions, and subject to them, individuals are allowed to donate as much as a half of a million dolllars to any candidate for federal office, and up to ten thousand dollars for any other candidate. Want to cavil about the specific amount limitations? Fine. I’ll happily agree any limits you want…larger or smaller. I really don’t care what they are.
And…You want to support a candidate our of your state? Great! Pack a soap box, get in your car, drive to Springfield, WE (Wherever) and shout your bloody head off for as long as you like. You still have your right to free speech, which is not….NOT!!!…cash.
Barry Scary,
How do I determine whether or not your missive is an in-kind contribution to candidates who share your viewpoints on this particular issue?
I’m glad you both are back. I was expecting to see some commentary about deceased corporations from Baron.
Mumbo Jimbo –
Oh, I certainlyI have my doubts that YOU could make that distinction, but I think most thoughtful people would have little problem determining that speech is an intangible. And by “speech” I mean a human being talking, writing a letter to the editor, blogging, etc. However if you want to quibble about the cost of purchasing a URL or hosting a website…ok, fine…we’ll you a “speech allowance” of a couple hundred bucks a year.
Do you think the Founding Fathers had corporate and union funded Super PACs in mind when the first amendment was written? Do you think there is an equivalency in the kind of “speech” those entities purchase and our little exchange here? Are you THAT corrupt?
Richard –
It still mystifies me that you apparently support the Citizens United decision. It is part of a corrupt system of campaign finance that stifles third party success and abets efforts to restrict ballot access and suppress voting rights.
I understand why Republican toadies like Mumbo Jimbo do, but not you.
I don’t think your “speech allowance” would be allowed under the First Amendment. The Citizens United decision was not just about so called “SuperPACs”, it was about the ability of any individual or group of individuals to pool money to speak and advertise their speech. That is at the heart of the First Amendment’s protection of the right to free speech, free press, and free assembly. Had Citizens United been ruled the other way, that would have tossed out all three of those provisions.
Just a few questions for you…
1) If “pooling” of resources is so vital to democracy, why am I limited, by law, to a relatively small amount that I can contribute, all by my lonesome, to a candidate? Shouldn’t I be able at least to “pool” the money in my checking account with the money in my savings account? How is it that the First Amendment apparently allows Congress to strict the amount of mone….er, sorry…”speech” I and you can spend…er, “exercise” individuallya.
2) Why is my relatively small contribution subject to public disclosure while those “pooled” contributions are not? Are democratic interests only served when the purchasers of “free speech” are allowed to be anonymous?
3) If I stand on a soap box in NYC’s Central Park and begin to speak to a small crowd, I am exercising free speech, am I not? But what happens if a convoy of trucks enters the park and surrounds me with the audio equipment the Stones use for outdoor rock concerts and begins to drown me out with an alternative political message? Whose “speech” is “free” then?
4) Am I missing something about the last century of American history? If I am, please me…when and how have for-profit corporations been at a disadvantage in promoting their “political” interests? How much consolidation and enhancement of their power are you willing to concede to make this a “better” America?
There is no evidence to support your claim, by the way, that another decision would have invalidated the provisions of the First Amendment. Nifty polemic to be sure, but since we have no other decision to examine…
Barry Scary,
Are you so corrupt that you believe that “no law” does not mean NO law. Surely the Founding Grandfathers and Grandmothers instructed the young Thomas’s, George’s, and James’s that “NO means NO.”
Do you object to commercial speech by corporations?
Mumbo Jumbo,
The inanity of your responses seems to be directly proportional to the number of pages the post has slipped back in be pile. probably no significance but rather a curiosity…nothing more.
Anyway, here goes:
1) I believe quite firmly that the FF’s did not contemplate the possibility that lifeless corporations would fall under the protection of the first amendment, as firmly as I believe they did not contemplate that the first amendment protected the right of tobacco plants to exercise free speech or the fourth amendment would protect tehm from being harvested in the fall.
2) My first post above clearly supports the right of corporations to engage in advertisement for commercial enterprise. Apparently then you prepared to admit that corporations’ interest in the political process is purely commercial and profit motivated. So I’m sorry for accusing you of being corrupt. Clearly you are a consistently principled fascist.
…and a huge Republican tool, as ever, one who in this instance proves his true stripes by equating cash and speech.
Barry Scary,
Is this commercial speech or political speech?
http://www.benjerry.com/activism/mission-statement
DNC Services Corporation is not a natural person. It can’t vote. Would you forbid it from advertising?
It appears that you want to censor based on the content of the speech.
Dear idiot,
Sorry…very disrespectful…
Dear Mr. Idiot,
From the B&J mission statement:
“We have a progressive, nonpartisan social mission that seeks to meet human needs and eliminate injustices in our local, national and international communities by integrating these concerns into our day-to-day business activities. Our focus is on children and families, the environment and sustainable agriculture on family farms.”
Apparently this strikes you as a partisan statement, endorsing only Democratic candidates, because Reublicans would not favor sustaining the environment, supporting families and children, huh? Sends shivers down your fascist spine, does it, Mumbo?
Or is it this overtly statement that rattles your cage?
“To make, distribute and sell the finest quality all natural ice cream and euphoric concoctions with a continued commitment to incorporating wholesome, natural ingredients and promoting business practices that respect the Earth”
Euphoric concoctions…fucking liberals, huh?
I wonder…do you happen to know what networks this political statement aired on, and when? And How much did B&J spend for the air time?
And now that you’re on page seven, I’m anticipating even more nonsensical, no responsive drivel from you.
Can’t wait.
Signor Barry Scary,
I did not ask whether the Ben&Jerry advertising was partisan speech. I asked whether it was political speech.
This question does not require you to assess whether Ben&Jerry’s
associatescows are contented with their working conditions. It requires a yes or no answer.You also did not address the issue of DNC Services Corporation.
Is DNC Services Corporation a natural person?
May DNC Services Corporation vote?
Would you permit DNC Services Corporation to engage in political speech?