On August 30, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman, an Obama appointee, struck down an Austin, Texas campaign finance restriction. Virden v City of Auustin, Texas, w.d., 1:21cv-271. The law forbade candidates for city office to receive campaign contributions more than one year before the election. Here is the 18-page decision.
It seems logical that if the First Amendment prevents governments from outlawing raising money outside of some designated period, by analogy the First Amendment ought to also prevent governments from barring candidates and parties from petitioning outside of designated periods. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that petitioning is First Amendment activity. Thanks to the Institute for Free Speech for news about this decision.
It should be none of the states business when anyone receives contributions, for how much, etc.
MUST ALWAYS SUE FOR $$$ DAMAGES – TO AVOID HAVING CASE KILLED ON APPEAL
Richard, I think maybe you meant:
“It seems logical that if the First Amendment free speech provision prevents [governments from barring candidates from] raising money…”
Blame all these election campiagn finance laws on Richard Nixon and his cronies that were corrupt. Before Nixon, hardly any finance election laws and tough ballot access laws. Burn in hell Nixon.
THEY SHOULD SUE FOR PURGE LISTS!
Purge lists have been recently revealed to be merely people expelled from a political party or other association that no longer want them as members. Rumors that it involves violence or any type of force has now been dispelled. Much ado about nothing.
Contribution limits are futile anyway. Money finds a way to flow around them, just like hard money limits just led to more soft money, and soft money limits led to more PACs.
It is exactly because they are ineffective and also run afoul of First Amendment rights that I view publicly funded campaigns as a far better way to level the playing field so that every vote is equal (instead of votes accompanied by a huge campaign contribution check being worth more).
Government funded elections have the flaws you described of contribution limits, plus additional others.
With publicly financed elections, there are no contribution limits. Instead of trying to restrict the flow of money, the aim is instead to allow a candidate who eschews wealthy donors to compete with those who welcome it. Without limits, there are no First Amendment implications. Simple as that.
There are different schemes. The one you propose is partial government financing. It increases the power of media, unions, and incumbents, and has been used as an excuse to limit third parties more, for example in NY.
Part of it depends on who gets to decide who qualifies for public financing. With Democracy Vouchers (much like with educational choice), it increases the power of individuals, increasing the influence of those who would otherwise not be able to afford to contribute to a campaign. Thus it strengthens them against those who already have the power to influence elections in the current system (e.g., the media, unions) as well as those who enjoy a competitive advantage in fundraising (i.e., incumbents).
Here’s what I’ve seen regarding New York, which appears to support the above. What have you seen?
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/analysis-shows-amplification-small-donors-under-new-ny-state-public
Brennan Center, a communist group.
I cannot think of better evidence of a proposal’s value than seeing its opponents attack the messenger instead of addressing the proposal itself.
Media, unions and incumbents are stronger under government financing because their most important contributions are not financial.
What I’ve seen about New York, among others, is government financing of elections used as an excuse to squelch third parties. Do a few search box queries on this site for additional detail. If you’re using the phone version switch to full to see the search box.