Sunday, August 01, 2010

Supporting the 1st Amendment

I agree with the complaintants.

An unlikely duo of a hard-line conservative group and a liberal organization together have brought a lawsuit to block a new state rule regulating political issue ads and messages that took effect Sunday.

Wisconsin Club for Growth and One Wisconsin Now said in a lawsuit filed in federal court in Madison that the state agency behind the rule overstepped its authority and violated their constitutional right to free speech.

The rule by the Government Accountability Board requires groups that air ads or make communications heaping praise on or criticizing political candidates to disclose where they get their money and how they spend it - even if those groups don’t specifically urge their audience to vote for or against the candidate.

“Club for Growth and One Wisconsin Now . . . are virtually at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum,” the complaint reads. “Yet, they are united on one fundamental principle: The First Amendment guarantees the right to express - as freely and effectively as possible - their views on public issues and public officials as well as candidates for state public office.”

Mike Wittenwyler, a Madison attorney for the groups, said his clients will seek a quick decision from a federal judge before the law requires them to register on Aug. 13 and make disclosures about their messages and ads on Aug. 16.

Kevin Kennedy, director of the nonpartisan Accountability Board, said the agency spent more than a year taking input from the public and drafting the rule. The six former judges who sit on the board considered whether the rule was constitutional and unanimously approved it, he said.

“It wasn’t something that was pulled out of thin air,” he said. “It was carefully considered.”

Many very bad and unconstitutional decisions were “carefully considered.”  That’s not a defense.

(8) Comments
Posted by Owen at 2229 hrs
Law + Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. I have no problem with transperancy.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 2329 hrs


  2. I agree - transparency is critical.

    I don’t see how requiring disclosure prevents free speech?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 2336 hrs


  3. Transparency isn’t the issue. Who gave them the authority to make the rule?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2010 at 2353 hrs


  4. Yet, they are united on one fundamental principle:

    The principle that they could all be out of work.

    Seriously, I have no idea if this law is good or bad.  But really, aren’t these guys just trying to hold on to whatever influence and power they have?

    Posted by scott on August 02, 2010 at 0006 hrs


  5. I do not understand that transparency is critical.How can you explain.Thank you for shairng.

    Posted by shure microphones on August 02, 2010 at 0412 hrs


  6. The GAB is a failed experiment cooked up by election reform zealots.  It’s time to get rid of it.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 0701 hrs


  7. Asking the government to make itself accountable should not costs people their rights.

    The purpose of the accountability board should be to protect people from the government violating their rights.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2010 at 0718 hrs


  8. i am against the first amendment as the people exercising there right have generally got a low iq and no other way to express them selves up with capitalism.

    Posted by Matthew Newton on August 02, 2010 at 0815 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.