3 ms·

You’re using ban like this was something about the government silencing someone, definitely a free speech issue. But that case was about campaign finance and th

• tzs 7y ago
  > You’re using ban like this was something about the government silencing someone, definitely a free speech issue. It was. > But that case was about campaign finance and the ability to control how much money, spending, etc., could be used in an election. It wasn't. The law in question in CU banned corporations (including non-profit corporations) and unions from paying for any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentions a candidate within 60 days of a general election of 30 days of a primary. A non-profit wanted to air a film critical of a candidate. They were prohibited by that law from buying air time to show to their film, or even from buying ads advertising the availability of the film. They sued to overturn the law. The case did not involve nor did the ruling change the law on campaign finance.
  • bluejekyll 7y ago
    > paying for any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentions a candidate within 60 days of a general election of 30 days of a primary. > The case did not involve nor did the ruling change the law on campaign finance. You’re right. And I was inaccurate. What we’re discussing is the rise and unregulated use of PACs and Super PACs to influence elections. This is an issue for fair elections and democracy.