Florida Political Speech - Release: 4-29-2009
Government Asked If It Can Ban Books and Doesn't Answer "NO."
U.S. Supreme Court Argument Shows Obvious Faults With Campaign Finance Regulations
WEB RELEASE: March 24, 2009
John Kramer(703) 682-9320
Arlington, Va.—The Institute for Justice, which filed an amicus brief on the side of Citizens United in the U.S. Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC, issued the following statements upon watching today’s U.S. Supreme Court argument:
“Today, the Supreme Court confronted the inescapable logic of the campaign finance laws: If the government can ban a broadcast advertisement that is paid for by a corporation, then it can ban movies and even books as well,” said IJ Senior Attorney Steve Simpson. “In fact, during the argument, Justice Samuel Alito asked the government whether the ban on corporate funding of advertisements would logically apply to a book that called for the election or defeat of a politician, and the government said that it would.”
“When the government is taking the position that it can ban books because they are financed by corporations, it is time to scrap the campaign finance laws,” Simpson said. “This is America. We don’t ban books here.”
Simpson said, “The government argued it is not actually banning advertisements or movies or books, but is only preventing corporations from paying for them with corporate treasury funds. But saying a corporation can’t spend ‘treasury funds’ on speech is like saying you can’t spend money from your bank account on speech. It is a distinction without a difference. The fact is, it takes money—sometimes even corporate money—to get speech heard. If the government can regulate the manner in which we make our speech effective, it can prevent us from speaking.”
The Court also briefly addressed the disclosure laws that would require those who financed the creation of “Hillary: The Movie” to disclose their names and addresses on a government website. The government’s position is that donors should be able to maintain their privacy only if they can show evidence of past harassment. But, as Justice Roberts pointed out, by the time a speaker can show harassment, the harm has already been done.
“Disclosure laws destroy the right to privacy and anonymity and often lead to harassment of those who choose to join with others, rather than to speak out on their own,” said Simpson. “If we take the rights of association and privacy seriously, then the burden should be on the government to show that disclosure is necessary to prevent harm.”