Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Search / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

The Truth About Election Laws

By Richard Lewis

When our country began, businessmen were arguing their businesses should be entitled to the same rights as people. However, today, people are arguing they should be entitled to the same rights as businesses! Few citizens know that this argument is now before the U.S. Supreme court, because the commercial press that enjoys the only "unrestricted free press rights" will not report this story!  Visit: www.realcampaignreform.org

When The Courier-Journal or any other commercial newspaper decides to publish a letter from an individual in support of or in opposition to the election of a candidate, that newspaper, a private business, is using its corporate exemption to grant that lucky individual (let’s call him “Tom”) a "limited franchise" or a "temporary exemption" from state or federal election laws.

If a major newspaper refused to print Tom’s letter, and if Tom decided to distribute a leaflet carrying the same endorsement door to door, in a quantity equivalent to the newspaper’s circulation, then he would be required to register with the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance or the Federal Elections Commission.  The election laws would limit the ways in which Tom could raise money to pay for the handbill and its distribution, and Tom would be subject to reporting requirements and confusing limitations regarding the legal definitions of coordination, express advocacy, and association, which have not been firmly established in 23 years of court tests. If Tom were found to violate those laws by distributing his leaflets, he would be subject to severe fines and imprisonment!

Taxpayers are spending millions of dollars every year to prosecute state and federal election law violations.  Candidates, politically active Citizens, grassroots organizations, and political parties also are spending huge sums in legal fees to try to avoid violations and to defend themselves against accusations that they violated complex and confusing election laws.  Can there be any question that these laws are preventing the competition of ideas and candidates that are so necessary to a properly-functioning government?

Tom could face ruinous legal fees to defend himself just for being accused of "coordinating" with a candidate's committee, even if he were later found to be innocent. Since it is difficult or impossible in many cases to determine what does and does not violate these laws, there is a substantial opportunity for abuse in prosecuting these cases.  Investigations before the Federal Election Commission can take as long as 8 years to complete.  In Kentucky, Skipper Martin and Danny Ross are still paying their lawyers to defend them against accusations that they violated Kentucky state election laws during Governor Paul Patton's 1995 Kentucky Gubernatorial campaign.

Does the Kentucky Constitution or the United States Constitution really grant any private business, such as The Courier-Journal, the authority to choose who will and who will not be exempt from state or federal election laws? By what lawful authority does any private corporation presume to restrict, exempt, or determine the 1st Amendment Rights of any living citizen?  These are serious legal questions.  How can a private corporation, which is for the purpose of law, a single person, arbitrarily determine who is and who is not entitled to unrestricted free press rights or who can and who cannot discuss certain issues within sixty days of an election? 

While reformers decry low voter turnout and the influence of “special interests” in elections, they ignore the special interests and undue influence of the institutional press.  Do General Electric and Westinghouse have special interests?  Of course they do!  But they are exempt from the laws that restrict your freedom and my freedom, because they own television networks, which are exempt from federal election laws. Do Fortune 500 companies have special interests? Of course they do!  But many Fortune 500 companies are able to skirt the federal election laws by sharing interlocking directorates with major newspapers. 

Not only do the election laws give U.S. corporations greater rights than individual U.S. citizens, but they also give greater rights to foreign companies than to U.S. citizens.  For example, the Gannett newspaper chain, which owns The Courier-Journal, is the largest newspaper chain in the United States, and it owns a foreign subsidiary, Newsquest, which is the UK's second largest publisher of regional and local newspapers.  Similarly, Rupert Murdoch owns the New York Post as well as the Fox network and newspapers and broadcast companies around the world.  Through these international corporate ties, foreign corporations have freedom of the press and exemption from election laws, while U.S. citizens do not!

General Electric enjoys 1st Amendment rights greater than those of a U.S. living, breathing, human citizen, because its NBC television network is a member of the media, which is exempt from the laws that restrict living citizens.  Of course, multinational corporations such as General Electric are not necessarily loyal to any particularly country and routinely move factories and jobs to countries where they can produce quality products with the lowest labor cost.  On the other hand, living U.S. Citizens are expected to be loyal to the United States and may be asked to risk or even give their lives defending the United States.  How can it possibly be the case that multinational corporations are given greater free press rights than ordinary citizens?

Elitist election laws will not help solve our political problems, provide for our nation’s energy needs, or bring jobs and industries back to America. On the other hand, political debate has historically helped develop solutions to our nation’s problems and strengthened our nation’s resolve to solve those problems.  By severely restricting the ability of living Americans to speak out on issues and to compete with incumbents in elections, the current election laws severely restrict the debate and competition that we so desperately need.

What can you do to restore our 1^st Amendment rights?

Citizens who understand this issue should begin encouraging family and friends to call, or write to, their United States Senators and their Congressman and demand that they delete or repeal 2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i).  

Citizens should also begin calling or writing to employees of the 'institutional press' and demand that they inform their readers and viewers about the Paul v. FEC lawsuit. Suggest to them that it is time for them to use our public airwaves and copious amounts of their paper and ink to expose these issues.

The 'institutional press' has limited capacity switchboards, and they must rely on the confidence of their readers and viewers for ratings that justify their advertisement fees. Be civil but be firm, and make it clear that you are serious and will call again next week if they do not respond to your reasonable request.

Don't just take it from me!

Click here to see support for the foregoing article:

(Editor’s note:  Richard Lewis has not only studied the election laws extensively; he has also been a victim of those laws.  After his campaign for U.S. Congress as an independent candidate, he was accused of “coordination” and spent many years defending himself.)

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest / Search / White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN