so... the point at which it's illegal to publish one's opinion is after one has already published his opinion? what a shame. at the risk of sounding like an anti-free-speech liberal, i think it isn't such a bad thing that only a certain amount of money may be spent for advertising on a candidate's behalf. if there were no limits at all, might it not simply become a matter of buying an elected office by out-advertising the opponent?Originally posted by article
In 1974, for the first time in American history, amendments to the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA) made it illegal in some circumstances for Americans to publish their opinions about candidates for election. Citizens and organizations who “coordinate” with a candidate for public office were prohibited from spending more than a set amount of money to publish arguments for or against a candidate. Those who “coordinate” with a candidate are his friends and supporters. In other words, publication was forbidden to those with the greatest interest in campaigns and those most likely to want to spend money publishing on behalf of candidates.
'course, it isn't always purely a matter of campaign spending. several years ago, a texas businessman named michael huffington came to california and spent a large sum of money (including somewhere between $25 million and $30 million out of his own pocket), trying to buy a seat in congress in a race against a local incumbent, and failed. i think that ill-conceived run for office might've been his wife's idea though, since he's rightly faded from the spotlight and she's been all over the television ever since. but god forbid such foolish examples of "free speech" be muzzled, or that they don't find loopholes around spending rules like slush and soft money.
Bookmarks