• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Restoring the First Amendment – One Case at a Time

    On Friday, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck another blow towards restoring every American’s First Amendment right to engage in political speech. In SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, the court applied the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United to throw out another pernicious portion of the federal campaign finance law also known as McCain-Feingold.

    SpeechNow is an unincorporated association of individuals that wanted to run independent ads in the 2008 election that supported candidates for federal office that shared their views on the First Amendment right of free speech and freedom to assemble. However, federal law limited the amount of contributions that could be made to the association because the FEC considered SpeechNow to be a political action committee or PAC. Individuals are limited to giving no more than $5,000 in contributions to a PAC in a given year.

    SpeechNow argued that this contribution limit violated the First Amendment rights of its members because it limited their independent political advocacy.  Why?  Well, the Supreme Court has previously held that the First Amendment allows unlimited independent political expenditures by an individual.  Thus, if I want to spend $50,000 of my own money taking out an ad in the Wall Street Journal urging people to vote for Senator Jefferson Smith because he is willing to filibuster pork-barrel, special interest legislation, Congress cannot limit the amount I want to spend on such political speech.  There is a disclosure requirement – most people don’t realize that if you spend more than $250 on such independent advocacy, you have to report it to the FEC

    However, let’s assume you didn’t have the $50,000 required to purchase a quarter page of the Wall Street Journal.  But you could afford to spend $10,000 and you had four friends who were just as impressed with Senator Smith who were also willing to contribute $10,000 each.  One would think, given the First Amendment’s protection of free speech and associational rights, that what one person can do in terms of political speech, several people acting together should also be able to do. Prior to this decision, however, you would have been wrong.

    Those five friends acting together to buy a political ad that a single individual could legally purchase would be violating federal law and subject to severe civil and criminal penalties.  The FEC, applying federal campaign finance law, would characterize those five friends as having formed a PAC.  Since PAC’s are limited to no more that $5,000 a year in contributions from an individual, you and your four friends would be considered by the FEC and the Justice Department to have violated federal law by contributing $10,000 each to buy this independent political ad.

    The D.C. Court of Appeals quite properly threw out these federal limitations on an association of individuals engaging in political speech and advocacy, although it upheld the disclosure requirements that apply.  So SpeechNow will still have to report its independent expenditures to the FEC.  In addition to being unconstitutional, making it illegal for individuals acting together to engage in political activity that any one of them could legally undertake as individuals makes no sense.  The SpeechNow case is another great decision for everyone who understands that the very core of the First Amendment is the protection of the right to engage in political speech, a principle that too many in Washington who call themselves “reformers” want to override.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to Restoring the First Amendment – One Case at a Time

    1. Billie says:

      Instead of this government focusing on their rightful duties, they'll waste the taxpayers time and money looking everywhere, discriminating anywhere!

      This government is not protecting, they're subjecting.

    2. MJF, CT says:

      Stop and think about this whole mess. Any limitation of support to a political candidate takes us back to 1775 when we were not allowed to support anyone but who we were told to support.

      Why are we allowing ourselves to be reverted little by little to these days of constraint under a government? Our Constitution clearly states that we have the freedom to support a political candidate:

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      It's called the 1st Amendment, it's a simple sentence yet so hard for those in power to understand. It is a restriction to the GOVERNMENT not to the PEOPLE, but they cannot get this through their little minds!

    3. Judy K. Warner, Rohr says:

      Thanks for reporting this — I didn't see it reported anywhere else.

    4. Tim AZ says:

      This will certainly help the American citizenry to reclaim their power over the federal government in the coming elections.

    5. Maggie P., Weymouth, says:

      Interesting that PAC is mentioned. I think, in order to shut me up & to stop me from writing anything that is vaguely conversative in voice,

      I received an email in my old email address…2006. Strangely, it was from PAC..& appeared to be someone aligned with Pa.Hodes. I don't know the person, but the person must not have liked anything I had to

      say…or write.

      I am believing that Freedom of Speech is for all Americans. And, the

      Freedom to Assemble should be as well. I am in complete agreement

      with the above comments in this article…

      These freedoms were given long ago by men, who were upright with a

      very strong fear (reverance/awe) towards God.

    6. Dennis Social Circle says:

      tHE cONSTITUTION IS DEAD, IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE ME ASK THOSE IN POWER, OBAMA, REID, PELOSI, And any democrat you find. They all talk a great story, but do not have the guts to stand up for what is right. They just want power and controll over all of us.

    7. wjcurran, U.S.A. says:

      liberalism is an incurable disease

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.