TITLE

CAMPAIGN SPEECH LAW WITH A TWIST: WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS THE SPEAKER, NOT THE REGULATOR

AUTHOR(S)
Norton, Helen
PUB. DATE
November 2011
SOURCE
Emory Law Journal;2011, Vol. 61 Issue 2, p209
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
Although government entities frequently engage in issue-related campaign speech on a variety of contested ballot and legislative measures, this fact has been entirely overlooked in contemporary First Amendment debates over campaign speech law specifically and government speech more generally. The Supreme Court's "campaign speech" and "government speech" dockets have focused to date on claims by private parties that the government has restricted or silenced their speech in violation of the First Amendment. In contrast, disputes over what this Article calls "governmental campaign speech" involve Free Speech Clause and other challenges by private parties who seek instead to silence the government's speech on matters subject to vote by members of the public or their elected representatives. This Article thus explores when, if ever, governmental campaign speech on contested ballot and legislative measures is sufficiently dangerous to justify a departure from the general rule that the government's own speech is insulated from Free Speech Clause review. This inquiry invites important and challenging questions about both the nature of government and the nature of speech, valuably forcing us to think about how government does, and should, work—as well as how speech does, and should, work. To this end, this Article reexamines the constitutionality of governmental campaign speech by incorporating perspectives offered by the emerging—but so far entirely separate—constitutional debates over campaign finance reform and government speech. This Article contends that government speech on issue campaigns generally furthers, rather than frustrates, key First Amendment interests. Transparently governmental campaign speech often provides great value to the public: it enhances political accountability by informing voters of their governments' priorities and preferences, provides a valuable heuristic for those who do not or cannot evaluate the competing arguments for themselves, and adds to the marketplace of available ideas and arguments, especially (but not only) as a counter to expression from powerful, private sources. The Article also identifies limits to its general proposition that the government's campaign speech is constitutionally valuable. First, it emphasizes that the government should be permitted to assert the government speech defense to constitutional challenges to its campaign speech on contested ballot or legislative measures only when that speech is transparently governmental in origin—when the public can clearly identify the message's governmental origins and thus hold the government politically accountable for its views. Second, it distinguishes government campaign speech that involves government's endorsement of political candidates, concluding that governmental bodies' campaign speech endorsing or opposing specific candidates raises greater threats to constitutional interests in preventing the self-perpetuation of incumbents and the entrenchment of political power. Finally, it highlights the availability of statutory and other nonconstitutional limits on government campaign speech, concluding that such constraints are constitutionally permissible yet often unwise as a policy matter in light of such expression's great instrumental value to the public. It urges instead, that policymakers carefully target such constraints to address specific instances of abusive government speech.
ACCESSION #
74623821

 

Related Articles

  • Government Nonendorsement. Tebbe, Nelson // Minnesota Law Review;2013, Vol. 98 Issue 2, p648 

    The article discusses the constitutional limits on government endorsements in America as of December 2013, focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court, America's government speech doctrine, and the Free Speech Clause which is contained in the First Amendment to the nation's Constitution. The...

  • STATE ACTION, GOVERNMENT SPEECH, AND THE NARROWING SPECTRUM OF PRIVATE, PROTECTED SPEECH. Wirth, Stephen K. // Cornell Law Review;Jan2014, Vol. 99 Issue 2, p485 

    The article discusses state action, government speech, and the reportedly narrowing spectrum of private protected speech in America as of January 2014. Jurisprudence in the U.S. is addressed in relation to America's Supreme Court and the First Amendment to the nation's Constitution. Freedom of...

  • A NEW LOYALTY OATH: NEW YORK'S TARGETED BAN ON STATE FUNDS FOR PALESTINIAN BOYCOTT SUPPORTERS. LAWTON, LINDSEY // Review of Law & Social Change;2018, Vol. 42 Issue 4, p649 

    New York State's Executive Order 157 (2016) prohibits a single political group from receiving state funds: supporters of Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS), a civil movement aimed at influencing Israeli government policy. This article analyzes the constitutional validity of New...

  • UNRINGING THE BELL: PUBLICLY FUNDED ART AND THE GOVERNMENT SPEECH DOCTRINE. Barlow, John // Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review;2014, Vol. 34 Issue 1, preceding p67 

    The framers of the United States Constitution drafted the First Amendment with the intent to codify one of the United States' foundational and immutable individual rights: the freedom of speech. While this freedom has remained a bedrock of constitutional law and a core value protected by the...

  • The "Bong Hits" Case and Viewpoint Discrimination: A State Law Answer to Protecting Unpopular Student Viewpoints. Mayor, Evan // George Washington Law Review;Apr2009, Vol. 77 Issue 3, p799 

    This article aims to determine the level of protection provided by the First Amendment to student speech in the U.S. It explores the struggle by giving a brief history of student speech law, including relevant decisions by the Supreme Court. It also assesses the state of the law regarding the...

  • Recovering the Freedom of Speech. Haun, William J. // National Affairs;Winter2016, Vol. 26, p82 

    This article focuses on the Freedom of Speech Clause in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Topics covered include the failure of conservatives to recover the founders' notion of protected speech in the Free Speech Clause, the dominant jurisprudence on the Supreme Court with regards to...

  • Free Speech or Harassment? LUBIN, ANDREW // USA Today Magazine;Jan2011, Vol. 139 Issue 2788, p19 

    The article discusses the case of Snyder v. Phelps which is pending for decision in the U.S. Supreme Court. It cites the ongoing debate concerning a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit to reverse the lower court's verdict and award First Amendment protection to the...

  • FROM ARMBANDS TO DOUCHEBAGS: How DONINGER V. NIEHOFF SHOWS THE SUPREME COURT NEEDS TO ADDRESS STUDENT SPEECH IN THE CYBER AGE. Hayes, Allison E. // Akron Law Review;2010, Vol. 43 Issue 1, p247 

    The article discusses several First Amendment student speech cases including the Doninger v. Niehoff decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The author explains that the First Amendment of the Constitution stipulates that the Congress shall make no law that abridged the freedom of speech. She reveals...

  • GOOD ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK: TWO CHEERS FOR CONTENT NEUTRALITY. Kreimer, Seth F. // University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law;May2014, Vol. 16 Issue 5, p1261 

    When then-Professor Elena Kagan emerged on the public stage in the mid-1990s, she declared "the distinction between content-based and content-neutral regulations of speech serves as the keystone of First Amendment law." In the last decade and a half, commentators and Supreme Court opinions...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics