SB 49 imposes a penalty of up to $1,000 for a candidate or political action committee who makes a communication that contains a disclaimer “that is difficult to read or whose placement is easily overlooked.”
The legislator’s heart is in the right place here, but it’s just horribly vague. We’ve seen in the Charlie White matter that these election regulations are pretty much just going to be resolved on a partisan basis. The law will be strictly enforced against minority parties or minor candidates but major candidates in major races can pretty much do as they please.
What I’d like to see (but won’t) is a system where we have an online registry for communications that lets me see (before the election) the identity of the actual humans (i.e. not vaguely named corporations or PACs) making the communication.
How about if we abolish corporations?
It’s an idea I’ve toyed with for a couple of years. I know the argument in favor (encourage people to try economically productive things without “betting the whole ranch”). I also know the reality (let people try reckless or speculative things, leaving devastation in their wake as unsophisticated people, who think a man’s word is his bond, extend credit and then get stiffed).
Then we wouldn’t have to single out corporate political speech for veil-piercing — a constitutionally dubious effort, as Jim Bopp has been proving in litigation around the country the past few election cycles.
I don’t know if the real world implications would be worth the benefits, but as a philosophical matter, getting rid of corporations certainly makes sense to me. In particular, I think the Libertarians should be on board with that. The corporate form’s main purpose is to be a government-created shield, protecting individuals from responsibility for their actions which strikes me as antithetical to libertarianism.
So… if we eliminated corporations, an owner could be liable for actions made by an officer of the company? If so, I don’t think I trust a single person enough to hire them. I am guessing a large amount of potential employers feel the same way.
Doug, I am a bit surprised that you think the legislature’s “heart is in the right place” regarding the new candidate law. The Voter ID law is a similarly “heart is in the right place” law which is not very effective, yet your blog posts suggest that you don’t believe altruistic motives exist for that law.
Paul, I have every reason to believe that the stated reasons advanced by proponents of the Voter ID law are nothing more than pretext. (I’ve expounded at length on why I think this is so, so I’m not going to repeat myself.) I don’t have similar reason to believe that proponents of this law are being disingenuous when they say that they want required disclaimers to be prominently displayed.
Why are disclaimers presumed to be necessary in the first space? Why is anonymous political speech presumed to be a bad thing? None of this makes any sense.