Chapter 7 Political Speech
True/False Questions
1) National political parties may not receive "soft money" contributions from business corporations.
Answer: True
Rationale:
This statement is true. Soft money refers to contributions to political parties for party-building activities rather than directly to candidates. Business corporations are prohibited from making contributions to national political parties under federal election law.
2) In McConnell v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's (BCRA) restriction on "electioneering communication."
Answer: True
Rationale:
The statement is true. In McConnell v. FEC, the Supreme Court upheld the BCRA's restriction on electioneering communications, which are advertisements broadcast close to an election that refer to a candidate for federal office. This decision affirmed the constitutionality of regulations on election-related communications.
3) In Buckley v. Valeo, the U. S. Supreme Court held that Congress could not limit campaign contributions by individuals and PACs.
Answer: False
Rationale:
This statement is false. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court upheld certain limits on campaign contributions but struck down limits on campaign expenditures by individuals and PACs, holding that they violated the First Amendment.
4) In the Buckley case, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that limits on expenditures would curb corruption.
Answer: False
Rationale:
This statement is false. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court concluded that limits on expenditures by individuals and PACs would not necessarily curb corruption and therefore struck down such limits as unconstitutional.
5) In McConnell v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a prohibition of "soft money" contributions to state political parties.
Answer: False
Rationale:
This statement is false. McConnell v. FEC primarily dealt with federal election law, and while it addressed issues related to soft money at the federal level, it did not directly address state political parties.
6) Profit-making corporations, such as Microsoft, are allowed to make federal campaign donations and expenditures directly from corporate funds.
Answer: False
Rationale:
This statement is false. Profit-making corporations are generally prohibited from making direct contributions to federal candidates or parties. Instead, they may establish PACs, which are separate entities that can make contributions within certain limits.
7) For-profit corporations may sponsor issue advertisements broadcast to the relevant electorate in the 60 days before a general election as long as those ads do not refer to a federal candidate.
Answer: True
Rationale:
This statement is true. Issue advertisements that do not expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a specific candidate are generally allowed under federal election law, even if they are sponsored by for-profit corporations.
8) A New York Times editorial advocating the election of federal candidate is illegal under federal election law.
Answer: False
Rationale:
This statement is false. Editorial endorsements by newspapers or other media outlets are protected speech under the First Amendment and are not considered illegal under federal election law.
9) PACs may spend unlimited amounts on behalf of a federal candidate as long as those expenditures are not coordinated with the candidate.
Answer: True
Rationale:
This statement is true. PACs (Political Action Committees) are permitted to spend unlimited amounts independently in support of or opposition to federal candidates, as long as their expenditures are not coordinated with the candidate's campaign.
10) Some states have restrictions on corporate participation in state political campaigns. The Michigan law prohibiting corporate expenditures on behalf of a candidate was found to be constitutional in the Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce case.
Answer: True
Rationale:
This statement is true. In Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Michigan law that prohibited corporations from using their general treasury funds for independent expenditures in state elections.
11) According to the ruling in FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, a non-profit corporation formed to promote an ideology, such as opposition to abortion, is exempt from federal election restraints on corporate expenditures advocating the election or defeat of candidates.
Answer: True
Rationale:
In FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, the Supreme Court held that nonprofit corporations formed to promote political ideologies, like opposing abortion, are exempt from certain federal election restraints on corporate expenditures. This exemption is based on the First Amendment protection of free speech and association.
12) A legally qualified candidate's campaign advertisement may be edited by a broadcaster to eliminate offensive material, such as images of aborted fetuses.
Answer: False
Rationale:
Broadcasters are not allowed to censor or alter the content of a legally qualified candidate's advertisement, even if it contains material that might be considered offensive. This principle is based on the idea that political speech by candidates should be protected and that broadcasters should not have editorial control over such content.
13) The reasonable access law was found to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in CBS v. FCC. The central rationale of this decision is that the First Amendment rights of the candidate and the public outweigh those of broadcasters.
Answer: True
Rationale:
In CBS v. FCC, the Supreme Court upheld the reasonable access law, which requires broadcasters to provide reasonable access to political candidates for advertising. The decision emphasized that the First Amendment rights of candidates and the public to access political speech outweigh the interests of broadcasters in controlling their programming.
14) Web site operators are subject to the "equal opportunities" and "reasonable access" rules relating to political candidates.
Answer: False
Rationale:
Web site operators are not subject to the "equal opportunities" and "reasonable access" rules that apply to broadcasters regarding political candidates. This is because websites are typically considered a form of private communication, and regulations on political advertising primarily focus on publicly accessible broadcast media.
15) The political broadcasting rules eliminate financial disparities among candidates.
Answer: False
Rationale:
Political broadcasting rules, such as the equal time rule and the reasonable access rule, are designed to provide candidates with fair access to the airwaves but do not necessarily eliminate financial disparities among candidates. Candidates with more financial resources can still purchase more airtime or produce higher-quality advertisements, giving them an advantage in reaching voters.
16) All PACs must be sponsored by a corporation or union.
Answer: False
Rationale:
Political Action Committees (PACs) can be sponsored by various entities, including corporations, unions, trade associations, advocacy groups, and even individuals. They serve as vehicles for collecting and spending funds to support or oppose political candidates or initiatives.
17) Grassroots lobbying is not covered by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.
Answer: True
Rationale:
The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 primarily focuses on regulating direct lobbying activities directed at influencing legislation or government decisions. Grassroots lobbying, which involves mobilizing the public to influence policymakers, is not subject to the same disclosure requirements under this act.
18) Registered lobbyists are required to file semiannual statements identifying their clients and detailing the general areas and specific issues on which they have lobbied. Registered lobbyists need not, however, report the names of legislators or executive branch officials they have lobbied.
Answer: True
Rationale:
The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 requires registered lobbyists to file semiannual reports disclosing information about their lobbying activities, including their clients and the general issues they have lobbied on. However, they are not required to disclose the names of specific legislators or executive branch officials they have contacted.
19) In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting corporate expenditures relating to referenda.
Answer: False
Rationale:
In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporations from making expenditures related to ballot referenda. The Court held that such restrictions violated the First Amendment protection of corporate speech.
20) In Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal requirement that beef producers fund a generic beef marketing program.
Answer: True
Rationale:
In Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that required beef producers to fund a generic beef marketing program through mandatory assessments. The Court ruled that such compelled funding did not violate the First Amendment because the program constituted government speech rather than private speech.
Multiple Choice Questions
1) During campaign periods, a media corporation that is not owned by a political party or candidate
A) may advocate the election of a federal candidate in an editorial published in one of its magazines.
B) may not donate corporate funds to a candidate.
C) may create and sponsor a PAC.
D) may refuse to sell space to candidates in its magazines.
E) All of the above.
Answer: E
Rationale:
All of the options are correct. A media corporation can advocate for a candidate in its editorial content, refrain from donating corporate funds to a candidate, create and sponsor a PAC to support political causes, and refuse to sell space to candidates in its magazines if it chooses to do so. These actions are permissible under campaign finance regulations.
2) The BCRA restriction on "electioneering communication"
A) was found to be facially constitutional in McConnell v. FEC.
B) applies to newspapers.
C) applies at all times.
D) applies to speech by individuals.
E) All of the above.
Answer: A
Rationale:
The restriction on "electioneering communication" under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) was indeed found to be facially constitutional in McConnell v. FEC. This restriction applies to various forms of communication, including television and radio advertisements, made within specific timeframes before an election and targeting the general public. It does not apply to newspapers or to speech by individuals outside the context of coordinated expenditures.
3) The 1978 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states may not prohibit corporate expenditures relating to referenda.
A) Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. PUC of California
B) First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
C) Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association
D) Buckley v. Valeo
E) CBS v. FCC
Answer: B
Rationale:
In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states may not prohibit corporate expenditures relating to ballot referenda. This decision expanded the protection of corporate speech under the First Amendment, establishing that corporations have a right to participate in political discourse, including ballot initiatives.
4) Corporations may be compelled to carry consumer news in company newsletters and mailings, even if the news is critical of the corporation,
A) if the corporation is a monopoly.
B) if the corporation is a public utility.
C) if the stock of the corporation is publicly traded.
D) All of the above.
E) None of the above.
Answer: E
Rationale:
Corporations cannot be compelled to carry critical consumer news in their newsletters or mailings, regardless of their status as a monopoly, public utility, or publicly traded company. Such a requirement would likely violate the corporation's rights to free speech and editorial control over its own communications.
5) The Supreme Court has created a constitutional distinction between campaign contributions and expenditures because
A) contributions are believed to present a greater danger of corrupting elections than expenditures.
B) expenditures are believed to present a greater danger of corrupting elections than contributions.
C) contributions are "pure speech."
D) expenditures have nothing to do with speech.
E) None of the above.
Answer: A
Rationale:
The Supreme Court has distinguished between campaign contributions and expenditures because contributions are seen as presenting a greater risk of corrupting the political process than expenditures. While expenditures involve spending money to advocate for or against candidates or issues, contributions involve giving money directly to candidates or political committees, which can create a potential for quid pro quo corruption.
6) The 2002 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the key provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).
A) Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
B) Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association
C) McConnell v. FEC
D) Buckley v. Valeo
E) First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
Answer: C
Rationale:
In McConnell v. FEC (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the key provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), commonly known as McCain-Feingold. This decision confirmed the constitutionality of restrictions on soft money contributions to political parties and electioneering communications by corporations and unions.
7) During a federal election, a corporation may engage in
A) partisan communications to management, stockholders, and their families.
B) non-partisan get-out-the-vote drives.
C) the organization of a political action committee.
D) All of the above.
E) None of the above.
Answer: D
Rationale:
During a federal election, a corporation may engage in various activities, including partisan communications to its management, stockholders, and their families, non-partisan efforts to encourage voter participation, and the organization of a political action committee (PAC) to support candidates or causes. These activities are permissible under campaign finance laws.
8) The 1981 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the requirement that broadcasters provide reasonable amounts of time to federal candidates.
A) CBS v. FCC
B) Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC
C) Turner Broadcasting v. FCC
D) National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting v. FCC
E) None of the above.
Answer: A
Rationale:
In CBS v. FCC (1981), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the requirement that broadcasters provide reasonable amounts of time to federal candidates for political advertising. This decision affirmed the constitutionality of regulations aimed at ensuring fair access to the airwaves for political candidates.
9) Under federal election law, as long as a media corporation is not owned by a candidate or political party, it may distribute candidate-related news stories, commentaries, or editorials through its
A) newspapers.
B) magazines.
C) broadcast stations.
D) cable program services.
E) All of the above.
Answer: E
Rationale:
Media corporations, as long as they are not owned by a candidate or political party, are allowed to distribute candidate-related news stories, commentaries, or editorials through various platforms, including newspapers, magazines, broadcast stations, and cable program services. This distribution is protected under the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press.
10) The equal opportunities requirements of the Communications Act do not apply to candidate appearances on
A) bona fide newscasts.
B) bona fide news interviews.
C) on the spot coverage of news events.
D) All of the above.
E) None of the above.
Answer: D
Rationale:
The equal opportunities requirements of the Communications Act exempt candidate appearances on bona fide newscasts, bona fide news interviews, and on-the-spot coverage of news events. This exemption allows broadcasters to feature candidates in these contexts without having to provide equal opportunities to opposing candidates, as these appearances are considered part of legitimate news coverage.
Essay Questions
1) Discuss the distinction between contributions and expenditures in federal election law.
Answer: Contributions are gifts of money or services given directly to a candidate or a candidate's campaign committee. Expenditures are monies spent independently of candidates to advocate their election. In Buckley v. Valeo, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a statute limiting the amount that can be contributed to a candidate, describing contributions as a form of "indirect expression." The Buckley Court struck down limits on expenditures, referring to expenditures as "direct speech."
The Buckley Court accepted the legislative purpose of contribution limits, which is to discourage political favoritism for large contributors. The Court said that contribution limits impose only a "marginal" restriction upon the contributor's ability to engage in political communication because the contributions are indirect, often amounting to simply writing a check. Despite the limitation on the amount of contributions, contributors were still free to make independent purchases of campaign advertising.
Expenditures, which must not be coordinated with a candidate's campaign, are more like pure speech than campaign contributions. Thus, the Buckley Court regarded limits on expenditures as a "direct and substantial" limitation on political speech. A limit on expenditures "necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached." The Court also argued that limits on expenditures would not curb corruption. Most importantly, the Buckley Court rejected the idea that expenditure limits are necessary to equalize the relative power of the rich and poor in an election. The Court stated that "the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment."
Under federal election law, corporations and unions are prohibited from making either contributions or expenditures from their treasuries. However, these organizations may participate in the campaign process by forming and sponsoring political action committees. Corporate PACs derive their funds from management and shareholder contributions; union PACs receive funds from members. PACs may contribute directly to candidates and may make unlimited expenditures. News coverage and commentary by media corporations is not considered to be an illegal corporate expenditure unless the corporation is owned by a candidate or political party.
2) Management of the Acme Corporation, a Texas-based producer of consumer products, wants to publicly express its opposition to legislative proposals to restrict immigration in the United States. In particular, the company wants to criticize a proposal sponsored by Senator Whiteman, a U.S. Senator who is a candidate for reelection in Arizona. The company also wants to urge the defeat of Senator Whiteman. Explain what steps the company may take to express its views publicly.
Answer: Corporations may use corporate funds to express their views on public issues provided that they do not urge the election or defeat of a candidate. Because Congress found that many issue ads were thinly-veiled endorsements or criticisms of candidates, Congress created the "electioneering communication" restriction in the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act. (This provision was found to be valid by the U.S. Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC.) Congress prohibited corporations from referring to federal candidates in broadcast, cable, or satellite ads reaching the "relevant" electorate during the sixty days before a general election or the thirty days before the primary. Under this provision, Acme has a number of options. First, it can fund broadcast, cable, or satellite advertisements that air nationally, including Arizona, as long as those ads do not refer to a federal candidate. These ads may also be placed on Arizona television stations. As long as these ads discuss immigration reform, but do not identify Senator Whiteman, they are legal. Second, Acme can place broadcast ads reaching Arizona voters, and referring to Senator Whiteman, as long as the ads air outside of the proscribed periods of 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary. Third, if the ads refer to Senator Whiteman, they are legal at any time as long as they do not reach the "relevant" electorate, voters in Arizona. Thus, Acme could purchase time on television stations in states such as Texas. Fourth, since the electioneering restriction does not apply to print media, Acme can purchase advertising space in national newspapers, such as the Wall Street Journal, as well as Arizona newspapers. These print ads, which may run at any time, must not advocate the defeat of Senator Whiteman, but may criticize his immigration proposal and may refer to him by name.
Corporations are prohibited from making campaign contributions and expenditures from corporate funds. However, corporations are allowed to create and sponsor political action committees (PACs). PACs receive contributions from management, shareholders and their families. PACs may give $5,000 a year to a candidate. However, they may spend unlimited amounts in favor or a candidate or in opposition to a candidate. Thus, Acme may create a PAC and Acme management may direct the PAC to contribute to Whiteman's opponents. Most importantly, Acme management may direct the PAC to purchase advertising that opposes Senator Whiteman's reelection. PAC sponsored ads are not subject to the "electioneering communication" restrictions of BCRA. The Acme PAC could spend unlimited amounts on Arizona media, including television, cable and satellite services reaching Arizona voters, to urge the defeat of Senator Whiteman. The design and placement of these ads must not be coordinated with Whiteman's opponents.
Key Terms
1) Referendum
Answer: A ballot issue allowing voters to accept or reject a state constitutional amendment or a state law. Referenda were initiated early in the twentieth century to neutralize the power of well-financed lobbyists over the legislatures. The reform was supposed to provide citizens a direct voice in governmental policy. To prevent corporations from dominating political debate over referenda, some states passed statutes prohibiting corporate expenditures relating to referenda. In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) the U.S. Supreme Court held that corporate speech on referenda is constitutionally protected because it furthers the free flow of information to the public. 2) Political Action Committee
Answer: Federal election law prohibits profit-making corporations and unions from making expenditures or contributions in a candidate election. However, federal law permits these entities to form separate segregated funds (PACs) that can raise and spend large amounts of campaign money. The PAC is a legal entity which is distinct from its sponsor. A corporate PAC may solicit voluntary contributions from management, shareholders, and their families; a union PAC may solicit funds from its members and their families. These funds may be contributed to candidates ($5,000 per candidate). There is no limit on uncoordinated expenditures. Some states also have restrictions on corporate participation in candidate elections. In Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Supreme Court upheld a Michigan requirement that non-media corporations use PACs for contributions and expenditures relating to candidate elections.
3) Equal Opportunities
Answer: Section 315 of the Communications Act requires broadcasters and cable systems provide a legally qualified candidate access to station/system facilities on the same terms as provided the candidate's opponent. Thus, if candidate A purchased 30 seconds of morning drive time, all of A's opponents would be entitled to purchase 30 seconds of morning drive time at the same rate A paid. There are four exceptions to the equal opportunities requirement; candidate appearances do not trigger equal opportunities when the appearance is during a bona fide newscast, news interview, on-the-spot coverage of a news event, or is incidental to the presentation of a documentary. The rules are designed to prevent broadcasters from favoring particular candidates. The rules, in effect, favor the well-financed candidates of the major parties.
4) Reasonable Access
Answer: Section 315 is triggered only when a station allows a candidate to use its facilities; a station could avoid equal opportunity requirements by refusing to run any candidate advertisements. To ensure that broadcasters accept ads from legally qualified candidates running for federal office, Congress adopted Section 312(a) (7), known as the reasonable access provision. This section requires that broadcasters provide federal candidates with reasonable access to the station's facilities. Unlike equal opportunities, this obligation is not contingent upon the station providing prior access to a candidate's opponents. Stations may satisfy this obligation by selling time to candidates. Where the candidate lacks the funds to purchase time, a station is not obligated to provide free time. The reasonable access provision was found to be constitutional in CBS v. FCC (1981).
5) Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
Answer: The Lobbying Disclosure Act requires registration by anyone whose total income for lobbying "contacts" with government is expected to exceed $5,000 over a six-month reporting period. The Act also requires organizations with in-house lobbyists to register if the organization's lobbying expenses will be more than $20,000 over six months. Lobbying "contacts" are defined as any oral or written communication, including electronic communication, with legislative and executive branch officials, designed to influence federal policy. Excluded from the registration and disclosure requirements are public officials acting in an official capacity, news media, and persons who testify before Congress. Registered lobbyists file semiannual statements listing their clients and detailing the general areas and specific issues on which they have lobbied. They are not, however, required to report the names of legislators or executive branch officials they have lobbied.
Test Bank for The Law of Public Communication
Kent R. Middleton, William E. Lee
9780205484683
