Exam 7: Political Speech

All PACs must be sponsored by a corporation or union.

Corporations that market products directly to consumers have generally not contributed to Super PACs.

The reasonable access law was found to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case CBS v. FCC. The central rationale of this decision is that the First Amendment rights of the candidate and the public outweigh those of broadcasters.

Although petitioning the government is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment, Congress requires disclosure of lobbying to prevent corruption of democratic processes.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Caperton v. Massey Coal Co. that due process requires a judge's recusal from a case involving a significant campaign supporter.

Profit-making corporations, such as Microsoft, are allowed to make federal campaign donations directly from corporate funds.

501(c) groups may not have political activities as their primary purpose.

The BCRA restriction on "electioneering communication":

Website operators are subject to the "equal opportunities" and "reasonable access" rules relating to political candidates.

The Citizens United ruling places a new emphasis on disclosure of campaign expenditures.

In the Citizens United case, Justice Kennedy's opinion for the Court:

Judges are elected for limited terms in the majority of states.

The Citizens United ruling did not affect the ban on corporate and union contributions to federal candidates.

Broadcasters:

The First Amendment rights of non-media corporations were first developed in cases involving ballot propositions and public issues.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA):

Contributions to candidates are thought to present a much greater danger of corrupting the political process than expenditures.

In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton and her supporters spent more than double the amount spent by Donald Trump and his supporters on advertisements.

In the case Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a law providing public funds to candidates in response to the privately financed campaign speech of opponents.

The majority of Super PAC expenditures are for "attack" messages opposing candidates.