Last month, Florida enacted a ban on anyone contributing more than $3,000 to a campaign for an initiative, or to a campaign to help get an initiative on the ballot. The ACLU and Fairvote and several other groups immediately sued to overturn the law.
On June 1, the plaintiffs filed this brief in support of their motion for injunctive relief against the new law. ACLU of Florida v Lee, n.d., 4:21cv-190. The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Allen C. Winsor.
I hope this oppressive law gets thrown out.
Again –
NOOOOOO dollar limit in the 1 Amdt.
1 Amdt language in FL Const ???
A-N-Y correct attacks on gerrymander regimes ??? – as in FL.
ROTTED USA States — more and more like olde city-state regimes in DARK AGE Italy-
How soon before before open wars and leader murders – Medici gang type plots ???
I concur with Demo Rep.
There is noooo dollar limit in the 1st amendment
Only if you believe money is speech. Not everyone agrees. Otherwise, it has nothing to do with the first amendment.
MONEY IS MONEY.
MONEY BUYS TIME/SPACE IN MEDIA FOR SPEECH/PRESS.
OLDE 1760-1820 TYRANT KING GEORGE III WOULD HAVE LOVED STOPPING ALL NEWS / SPEECH / PRESS CRITICAL OF A-N-Y THING IN THE OLDE BRIT REGIME OF MONARCHS / OLIGARCHS.
SEE OLDE BRIT SEDITIOUS LIBEL.
SEE BOOK –
SOURCES OF OUR LIBERTIES ED BY RICHARD L. PERRY (AM BAR ASSN, 1959) – ABOUT USA BILL OF RIGHTS IN AMDTS 1-8.
SOL review 1960 —
https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3576&context=law-review
Boris, it costs money to print handbills and buy the paper. If the government banned spending money on printing handbills, would you say that was consistent with the First Amendment?
I don’t know where I come down on the issue, only that it seems like a legitimate question to me. In theory, it the government limited how much any one person spends on handbills, it’s not the same as if it bans handbills altogether.
Anyone could still distribute handbills. If those handbills attracted enough supporters, they could band together to print and distribute more handbills. It’s unlikely that the cost of a printer, paper and ink would even be considered to be handbills costs as such. But even if they were, the principle still holds: limiting economic activity to scale the reach of speech to a larger audience when that economic activity isn’t dispersed to being paid for by X number of individuals isn’t necessarily the same thing as limiting free speech per se. It may or may not be.
Each of those individuals, and everyone else, would still have the right of free speech, including the right to print and distribute handbills.
Here, the law doesn’t take away the right to circulate an amendment, or even the right to contribute money to have someone else circulate it. It only limits how much each person can spend to do so. If there are enough volunteers and or small donors their free speech rights are intact.
If a newspaper prints an endorsement of a candidate, should it limit the sales of that newspaper to the maximum contribution limit?
Goof question, Walter.