Goldwater Institute Amicus Brief in Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission

Posted on November 14, 2005 | Type: Amicus Brief
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Email

When this Court first created the contribution and express advocacy exceptions to protections for political speech, it recognized the questionable nature of the enterprise and strove to limit it, finding only in the most narrow of circumstances that a governmental interest in preventing corruption could trump protected speech. The government has since inverted the process, looking first for any proximity to an election as the preeminent question, and second to whether a speech interest exists. Speech jurisprudence is sliding down a slippery slope; prophylaxis is replacing narrow tailoring. It seems that it is now the regulation of speech, not its protection, that has its “fullest and most urgent application” where speech has any attenuated relation to an election.

Read the full text from "Goldwater Institute Amicus Brief in Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission"

Advanced Search

Date
to Go >>

Recent Facebook Activity