Free Speech, Or Is It?

I thank <a href="http://www.mtpolitics.net/">Craig</a> for bringing <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/24/AR2007102402337.html">this</a> to my attention. It appears that the University of Montana has limits on the amount of money a student can spend on a campaign for student government offices.<br />n<br />n<blockquote>The Associated Students of the University of Montana (ASUM) allocates student activity fees, which are public funds, and lobbies students, the university administration and the state legislature on policy matters. In April 2004, Aaron Flint ran for the student senate. During the campaign, a large number of posters critical of him appeared around the campus. He believes they were placed by the University of Montana College Democrats and the liberal Montana Public Interest Research Group. Neither group is subject to the expenditure limits applied to candidates.<br />n<br />nTo counter this opposition, Flint spent $214.69 of his own money on professionally made posters and pizza for his campaign workers. He won. But because he spent an impermissible $114.69 — enough to buy seven large Domino's pepperoni pizzas — to respond to unregulated speech, ASUM removed him from office. This presumably taught the university's students important lessons about the civic danger posed by too many posters (too much political speech) and too much pizza, and about the dignity of the law. </blockquote><br />n<br />nThis can be spun in many different ways by many different people. Some would claim it is in keeping with McCain-Feingold and by limiting the money candidates can spend makes the democratic system more fair. Others come down on the side that limiting spending on campaigns is limiting free speech.<br />n<br />nI guess I look at it this way, if burning the flag is considered speech and laws against burning the flag are a violation of my free speech, limiting the amount of money I can spend to get my point across in a political campaign is limiting my free speech too.<br />n<br />n<blockquote>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.</blockquote><br />n<br />nIt's really pretty straight forward here. I know that the Amendment says Congress but the Supreme Court has <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/First_amendment">included more levels of government</a> in its interpretation of this provision. Then let us look at the Montana Constitution.<br />n<br />n<blockquote>Section 7. Freedom of speech, expression, and press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech or expression. Every person shall be free to speak or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty. In all suits and prosecutions for libel or slander the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the facts.</blockquote><br />n<br />nWow, "Every person shall be free to speak or publish whatever he will on any subject." So if a student at a state funded University wants to publish a poster proclaiming his position, the Montana Constitution gives him the right to do this since he is free to publish whatever he will.<br />n<br />nThis all seems pretty clear to me. The University should have no limits on money like they do. It is clearly a violation of not only the Constitution of the US but the Constitution of the State of Montana. We might not like the role money plays in politics today, but to limit it, limits our all of our free speech. Conservatives hate that flag burning is considered free speech. Maybe Liberals need to understand that limiting money in political campaigns is also limiting free speech and is wrong. Wrong for all of us.<br />n<br />n<strong>Before you do anything, you need to know if it's right or wrong. Andy Lau</strong>