Institute for Justice challenging state restrictions on free speech
The folks at the Institute for Justice are taking their lawyerly free speech cudgel to a Florida law placing limits on citizens’ ability to speak out about ballot initiatives.
In half of all states, and Nevada is certainly one of them, those who want to spend money to speak out about ballot issues or campaigns must register and submit variance forms and fees.
In the case of Florida, according to Paul Sherman, a staff attorney for IJ, “The individuals we represent want to air a radio ad listing the top five reasons to vote against Florida’s amendment to hamper development, but because of campaign finance disclaimer requirements, they will only have time to list three reasons in the 30 seconds. The government-mandated disclosure would take up nearly six seconds — one-fifth of the airtime they have to make their point to voters. This is just one small but tangible example of what’s wrong with campaign finance restrictions and why, if we believe in free speech, they must be challenged in court and defeated.”
This issue came up in the spring when a Virginia group ran ads in support of gubernatorial candidate Brian Sandoval, until a judge issued a restraining order stopping them. One of the major issues was that the group was not disclosing its contributors.
The judge in the case said, "Irreparable harm will occur to the voters and to the electoral process if broadcasting of the Ad is not enjoined, because voters are being deprived of the information to which they are entitled under Nevada law prior to casting their ballots."
IJ is launching a campaign asking the states with restrictions to comply with the First Amendment.
“Freedom of speech is not only a right, it is a profound value” said IJ Staff Attorney Darpana Sheth. “It is time for campaign finance laws to give political speech the respect it deserves.”
Justice John Paul Stevens, who doesn’t think flag burning should be a free speech right, does think anonymous speech is a right. In overturning an Ohio law, Stevens wrote, "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."
In Citizens United just this past January, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, "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."
Will anyone take up the task of clearing such laws from Nevada’s books, or do they have more pressing concerns than fundamental rights?
Take a look at this IJ video and its amusing take on our political class:
