Home Search
 

Search the Blog

 

 

Browse Blog Category

 
 

Twitter


 

Tell Your Story

Share your experience with campaign finance and First Amendment regulation. Enter your e-mail below.

 

 

Blog Roll

Ballot Access News

Citizens in Charge

Electionline.org

Election Law Blog

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law Center

Express Advocacy

First Amendment Center

HoltzmanVogel blog

Make No Law

National Journal's Under the Influence

Nonprofit & Foundation Advocacy Blog

Pay to Play Law Blog

Political Activity Law

Public Affairs Perspective

Public Participation Project

Save Our States

The Volokh Conspiracy

Votelaw

 
printPrint Page

BLOG

If Jack Davis were Canadian...

Published on January 14, 2008

Category: Contributions & Limits, Faulty Assumptions

Writing about Davis v. FEC over at Concurring Opinions, Frank Pasquale offers an interesting comparison between the ability to regulate political speech in the United States and in Canada.

The important, but unspoken, conclusion that can be drawn from the post is that opinions overruling "egalitarian" campaign finance models are NOT the result of a "misreading" of the First Amendment.  As such, supporters of the Millionaire's Amendment will have a difficult road to tread.

Pasquale points out that the U.S. Supreme Court has laid clear that "[t]he concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment."

Conversely, Pasquale notes that in Canada the Courts have ruled quite the opposite. "The Court's conception of electoral fairness as reflected in the foregoing principles is consistent with the egalitarian model of elections adopted by Parliament as an essential component of our democratic society...

...The state can equalize participation in the electoral process in two ways... First, the State can provide a voice to those who might otherwise not be heard. The Act does so by reimbursing candidates and political parties and by providing broadcast time to political parties. Second, the State can restrict the voices which dominate the political discourse so that others may be heard as well."

Unfortunately for the "reformers", the Millionaire's Amendment not only depends on an unconstitutional interpretation of the First Amendment, but it undermines the hitherto accepted rationale for campaign finance regulation.  As Bob Bauer points out, "The statute sacrifices its anti-corruption rationale to ‘equalize' competition: it sheds the constitutionally approved interest for one that has been disapproved, repeatedly."

It is American culture, and not a misreading of the First Amendment, that has enshrined free speech as an integral part of the Court's campaign finance jurisprudence.

 

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/trackback/if-jack-davis-were-canadian

Login or Sign-Up to Comment

Bookmark and Share