ockraz • 9 years ago
That just sounds like gobbledygook to me. If SCOTUS found disclaimer's unconstitutional in 1960, then what is this: http://www.fec.gov/pages/br...
f_n • 9 years ago
Hey genius, the FEC regulates FEDERAL elections, not STATE elections. Try again.
ockraz • 9 years ago
Hey nimrod: if it's unconstitutional then it makes no difference whether the election is federal or state or local. Seriously, just think about what you're saying for two seconds before you comment.
gt bear • 9 years ago
Unconstitutional statutes continue until someone sues. It's hard to sue the federal government, so I haven't. I have submitted comments to the FEC letting them know their policy is illegal, but it hasn't stopped them. Right now the commission is split 3-3 on whether disclaimers can be applied to the internet,and they are accepting comments through February.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
ockraz • 9 years ago
Look, I can understand why someone would believe that disclaimer requirements violate the 1A. (I honestly don't see the relevance of the 14th here, though.) However, that doesn't mean that the requirements actually ARE unconstitutional. It just means that there's a theory about why they SHOULD BE deemed unconstitutional.
Certainly, I'd say that it's totally plausible that different rules could apply to private individuals, to advocacy groups, to political parties, and to the campaigns of actual candidates. It's also plausible that requirements could apply only to instances of expression which cross some threshold based upon cost and/or the number of individuals who would see/hear a message.
It looks to me as if Talley only makes clear that the California law was overbroad, and that total bans on anonymous political speech actually are unconstitutional. The court found in McIntyre's case that she wasn't required to include a disclaimer, but she was a private individual. Stewart seems to be about a single yard sign. None of these cases establishes that disclaimer requirements are always unconstitutional, which is the claim you seem to be making.
gt bear • 9 years ago
oh this is interesting, didnt see it at the time. feel free to drop me a line at gtbear at gmail. you position sounds to me like saying there's just a theory that slavery is unconstitutional. mcintyre held that there is no elections exception to the rule in talley. they didnt create some new exception for little old ladies. there is a conflict between what the court has ruled and what the executive and legislative branches want, but marbury v madison mostly settled that one.
JD • 9 years ago
Know your facts IDS. This is a sad attempt by the Connie Lawson campaign to keep people from voting. As GT Bear states, you owe Beth White an apology for running this story without knowing the facts.
ockraz • 9 years ago
Balderdash - her campaign already admitted the error - although they claim it's the printer who's responsible.
Jeff Ellington • 9 years ago
It is a law to let everyone know who is paying for and supporting a candidate. Like it or not it is simple to put the paid for by on any piece of mail it does not cost any more. She does not want the public to know that most of her and her fellow democrats are influenced with out of state donors like Chicago political mobsters
Guest • 9 years ago
Hmmm...I wonder why this is not state news, oh, because it is incorrect! Way to go IDS! Who paid you to print this story?
White's flyers were not illegal. They were free speech protected by the US and Indiana constitutions.
In 1960 The Supreme Court held in Talley v California that disclaimer rules are unconstitutional. In 1997 in Stewart v Taylor I got Indiana's disclaimer rules declared unconstitutional. See also Ogden v Marendt, and the current case of Mulholland v Election Board. Citizens United found that the government can require disclaimers on speech by corporations, but that doesn't apply to White's postcards. An unconstitutional statute is void and is not law. IDS owes White an apology, but kudos for breaking the story.