In the name of free speech: Let’s get it on

If you have a right to do something, it is counterintuitive for government to demand you get a permit to do it.

Secretary of State Ross Miller is carrying out his duty of enforcing existing state law by seeking a restraining order to block a PAC from airing commercials supportive of gubernatorial candidate Brian Sandoval.

Miller's office said in a press release, "The temporary restraining order seeks to enjoin Nevada TV station from airing the 30 second ad. In addition, the Secretary is requesting the court to order 'Alliance for America’s Future' to comply with Nevada law and disclose the identity of those behind the advertisement and shed light on the source(s) of funding for the commercial. The Secretary of State’s Office will seek injunctive relief in Carson City’s First Judicial Court."

Barry Bennett, a director of that PAC, is correct in telling him to pound sand.

The Constitution is on Bennett’s side. I’m hoping neither backs down and this winds up before a judge with a modicum legal common sense who will reject the law in question as facially unconstitutional.

NRS 294A.0055 says any group of natural persons who contribute or spend money on an election must register with the state and report its financial dealings. Failing to do either is subject to a fine of up to $5,000,

But there are exceptions. These include an individual, certain vendors, recall committees and, for goodness sake, unions.

Bennett and his attorney argue the alliance ads don't contain an "express advocacy" specifically telling viewers to vote for Sandoval and, as such, the group isn't required to register as a PAC.

That’s nitpicking. What they should be saying is that the state has no right to curb the group’s right to free speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1995 in McIntyre v. Ohio that people may not be required to get a state permit to exercise political free speech and they may even speak anonymously.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in that case:

“Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. ... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation — and their ideas from suppression — at the hand of an intolerant society.”

But this was a group, you say.

That brings us to Citizens United v. FEC in which the court struck McCain-Feingold Act limits on electioneering free speech of corporations and unions.

Justice Antonin Scalia explained in a concurrence:

“The (First) Amendment is written in terms of ‘speech,’ not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals—and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is ‘speech’ covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise.”

As a certain Reno judge would say, “Let’s get it on.”