Supreme Court to Revisit ‘Hillary’ film and corporate cash in politics

[crazy canuck]

The extent to which third parties can enter the political fray during elections, mainly challenges to third party spending rules, has been litigated a fair amount here in Canada over the last 10 years.  It will be interesting to see what the USSC does.

[ulmont]

How does the USSC justify what may or may not be 'reasonable' limits on a right, especially since the Bill of Rights doesn't have any kind of limiting section?

Basically, they make it up as they go along, guided by precedent, like everything else.  To extremely oversimplify, there are 3 different levels of scrutiny:

Strict scrutiny:  To be constitutional under strict scrutiny, the law must (1) be justified by a compelling governmental interest, (2) must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and (3) must be the least restrictive means of accomplishing that interest.  Strict scrutiny is typically applied when a fundamental right is implicated (including those from the bill of rights), or where racial classifications are imposed.  In the free speech context, strict scrutiny is applied for laws that restrict speech in a public forum and laws that restrict speech based on its viewpoint or content.

Intermediate scrutiny:  To be constitutional under intermediate scrutiny, a law must (1) involve important governmental interests that are (2) furthered by substantially related means.  Intermediate scrutiny is typically applied to sex-based classifications.  In the free speech context, intermediate scrutiny is applied for laws that restrict sexually explicit (but not obscene) speech and for content-neutral laws that restrict speech.

Rational basis:  To be constitutional under rational basis review, a law must be (1) rationally related to a (2) legitimate government interest.  Rational basis review is applied whenever strict or intermediate scrutiny is not implicated.  In the free speech context, rational basis review is applied to the regulation of obscene speech.

[Barrister]

The extent to which third parties can enter the political fray during elections, mainly challenges to third party spending rules, has been litigated a fair amount here in Canada over the last 10 years.  It will be interesting to see what the USSC does.

And, in an ironic little twist, the leading case is Stephen Harper v Canada.

[MadImmortalMan]

make it up as they go along, guided by precedent

[dps]

And since I'm not a US lawtalker I stand to be corrected, but corporations, being persons at law, I believe would have a guaranteed freedom of speech.

Right, but they're persons at law because of a government fiction, not because they're actually persons. So can one restrict their First Amendment Rights in a more serious way?

Screw it, I don't have con law til next semester.

The fiction that corporations are persons at law only obscures that they are ultimately ways for individuals to conduct their affairs in society.

For example, for tax reasons I may choose to conduct my mom and pop business through a corporation. Does that mean that if I transfer assets into the corporation I lose the right to use those assets to express certain opinions? Is it potentially an abuse of the first amendment to advantage certain types of corporations--incentivizing people to transfer assets to them--and then restricting the the speech of the corporations? Or is this a slippery slope argument and as silly as the UN black helicopters?

As a legal matter, of course the exact status of a corporation as opposed to an individual is a big part of the issue.  But on another level, this is just a bald-faced effort to suppress expression of certain political views, something which I think should be strongly opposed.

[DGuller]

How is this suppression of certain political views?  Is bribery protected by First Amendment?

[dps]

How is this suppression of certain political views?  Is bribery protected by First Amendment?

How the heck is the distribution of books advocating a certain position a form of bribery?

[Neil]

How is this suppression of certain political views?  Is bribery protected by First Amendment?

How the heck is the distribution of books advocating a certain position a form of bribery?

Because you're supporting the politicians who espouse those views?

It's Dorsey.  He's retarded.

[Razgovory]

How is this suppression of certain political views?  Is bribery protected by First Amendment?

How the heck is the distribution of books advocating a certain position a form of bribery?

Except that books weren't what's going on.  The law does not cover that.  That's just somebody playing a game of what if.  No books have been banned.

[dps]

How is this suppression of certain political views?  Is bribery protected by First Amendment?

How the heck is the distribution of books advocating a certain position a form of bribery?

Except that books weren't what's going on.  The law does not cover that.  That's just somebody playing a game of what if.  No books have been banned.

I understand that the book thing was a hypothetical.  I still don't see where bribery entered into the discussion.

[Razgovory]

It's the logical extension of money as a form of speech I guess.

[jimmy olsen]

JR, what are your opinions on this case?

[The Minsky Moment]

Not sure I'd like to read the briefs first.

But gut feeling is that this goes to far in regulating political speech.