Guest James Dickey discusses a recent case on government speech in schools. Paul Sherman critiques Second Circuit's reasoning on campaign finance laws. Topics include free speech rights, viewpoint discrimination, and contribution limits in politics.
The Eighth Circuit ruled against viewpoint discrimination in public schools regarding poster displays.
The Second Circuit upheld New York's campaign finance laws favoring major parties over independents.
The court's focus on facial challenges neglected exploring nuanced as-applied challenges in campaign finance laws.
Deep dives
First Amendment Victory in Eighth Circuit Regarding Public School Speech
A recent First Amendment victory in the Eighth Circuit involved a case where the Lakeville Public School System faced pressure from local activists and teachers to display Black Lives Matter posters. The district initially maintained a policy of neutrality on political issues, but later allowed the posters to be displayed individually by teachers and administrators. One couple objected to the district's favoritism towards specific messages and pushed for equal representation of other viewpoints like Blue Lives Matter and All Lives Matter, leading to a lawsuit for viewpoint discrimination.
Challenging Campaign Finance Laws in the Second Circuit
The Second Circuit addressed a challenge to New York's campaign finance laws that impose higher contribution limits on major political parties compared to independent bodies. This differential treatment raised concerns about political corruption and the sway major parties have over campaign funding. The court upheld the laws, citing anti-corruption interests but failed to consider an as-applied challenge, potentially leaving room for future legal challenges if distinctions between various political entities are further explored.
Contributions to Independent Bodies vs. Major Political Parties
The case highlighted disparities in contribution limits between major political parties and independent bodies in New York, showing favoritism towards established parties. Independent bodies face significantly lower contribution ceilings, restricting their ability to compete effectively in the political arena. The court's decision revealing inherent obstacles for emerging political groups trying to navigate the funding landscape.
Facial Challenge vs. As-Applied Challenge in Campaign Finance Laws
The court's focus on a facial challenge to the campaign finance laws neglected exploring nuanced as-applied challenges that could highlight specific instances where the laws disproportionately affect certain political entities. By not delving into individual applications, the court missed the opportunity to address potential discriminatory outcomes and their impact on political diversity and fairness in campaign funding.
Future Legal Implications of Case Development
Amidst the implications of the court's ruling on campaign finance law differentials, potential future legal challenges could arise from parties affected by the disproportionate contribution limits. The need for a more targeted approach that considers the unique circumstances of each political entity could pave the way for refining campaign finance regulations to foster equitable participation and representation in the political landscape.
This episode is a First Amendment 2-4-1. We begin with James Dickey of the Upper Midwest Law Center (and former golf pro). James tells us about a recent case he argued at the Eighth Circuit concerning the “government speech” doctrine. If a public school lets some people—but not others with a different viewpoint—come in and hang posters is that just fine because it’s the “government” speaking? In keeping with some recent Supreme Court rulings, the court said no, letting the case go forward. Then IJ’s campaign finance guru Paul Sherman steps forward to tease out a confusing opinion of the Second Circuit about a New York law that allows big contributions to big political parties but much smaller contributions to much smaller groups. It seems the reasoning is that major parties are above suspicion. Can that be right? Paul doesn’t think so.
