To jump back into this, I think I should explain a bit more about what I meant.

If I file for and run for office, I am agreeing to certain restrictions. For one thing, I am agreeing that any campaign documents, statements, mailings, etc. be accompanied by a disclaimer indicating who paid for that statement. More to point, I would be promising to not say anything that is not accompanied by such a disclaimer. I don’t think that is wrong.

Come to think of it, I can’t think of any other prior restraints on speech imposed upon candidates than the disclaimer.

Aaron

Aaron raises an excellent point about campaign finance reform. And this whole issue with the Great Falls Leaderless gives us a great demonstration of the true motives of the media in jumping on the bandwagon to limit free speech for the rest of us: They want to control the information!

Second, the statute relied on by the State of Montana is more than likely unconstitutional. I am going to do a little post on some research I have done on my site this morning. I have posted similar conclusions in a comment on Aaron’s blog.

That point notwithstanding, I found some background on the main issue under discussion:

The FEC Office of General Counsel has released the draft of its recommended opinion (2005-16) in response to the request of Fired Up. The draft concludes that Fired Up, which operates a website in Missouri and other states to offer “unabashedly progressive” news and commentary, qualifies for the “press exemption.”

The draft states, in relevant part:

An examination of Fired Up’s websites reveals that a primary function of the websites is to provide news and information to readers through Fired Up’s commentary on, quotes from, summaries of, and hyperlinks to news articles appearing on other entities’ websites and through Fired Up’s original reporting. Fired Up retains editorial control over the content displayed on its websites, much as newspaper or magazine editors determine which news stories, commentaries, and editorials appear in their own publications….

The Commission notes that an entity otherwise eligible for the press exception would not lose its eligibility merely because of a lack of objectivity in a news story, commentary, or editorial, even if the news story, commentary, or editorial expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for Federal office.

The full draft may be found at: http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/clientfiles/AO2005-16.pdf.

Whenever you tell anyone what they can and cannot say, especially before they say it, I think you are running afoul of one of our most important freedoms.

Election regulators should not have the authority to regulate what I say, unless I run for for office (and therefore enter into an agreement with them, allowing them to curtail my speech within the boundries of election law). As a private citizen, I should be able to say and write what I like, when I like.

And for anyone reading; don’t put up any bogus about commercial speech. The only restriction on commercial speech is that the speaker should be able to show some sort of verification that he had some reasonable expectation that the commercial speech was true. That shouldn’t apply to most political writings.