|
In ''Buckley v. Valeo'', the United States Supreme Court limited the reach of campaign finance laws to candidate and party committees, and other committees with a major purpose of electing candidates, or to speech that "expressly advocated" election or defeat of candidates. In footnote 52 of that opinion, the Court listed eight words or phrases as illustrative of speech that qualified as "express advocacy". ==Importance of the eight magic words== Under the ''Buckley'' ruling, speakers that did not invoke any of the eight specific words and phrases of ''Buckley'', or similar language expressly calling voters to vote for or against a candidate, were exempt from campaign finance laws.〔Michelle Robinson, ("Section 3.1 - Campaign finance, Subsection 3.1.1 Federal law, Glossary of term" ), Michael E. Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University, referenced February 16, 2012〕 The eight words and phrases appearing in Buckley were "vote for," "elect," "support", "cast your ballot for", "Smith for Congress", "vote against", "defeat", "reject", or any variations thereof.〔("Case No. 00-60779" ), U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, April 15, 2002〕 That footnote was intended to provide examples of the types of things that would lead a reasonable person to conclude the speaker was advocating a particular candidate or ballot measure.〔(Governor’s Blue-Ribbon Commission on campaign finance reform for State of Wisconsin, Final Report, Section 5. Level the playing field, Promoting freedom of speech, paragraph 3-6, Chairman Donald F. Kettl, May 1997 )〕 The Court felt that limiting campaign finance laws to speech with such express advocacy was necessary to avoid a "chilling effect" on speech about political officeholders and issues that was protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Eight Magic Words」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|