Synopses & Reviews
Special-interest money is destroying our democratic process. But now that the Citizens United decision has thrown out campaign spending limits as abridgments of free speech, Americans want to know what they can do about it. Derek Cressman gives us the tools, both intellectual and tactical, to fight back. There's nothing inherently unconstitutional in limiting the amount of speech, Cressman insists. We do it all the time—for example, cities control when and where demonstrations can take place or how long people can speak at council meetings. Moreover, he argues that while you choose to patronize Fox News, MSNBC, the
New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal, political advertising is forced upon you. It's not really free speech at all—it's paid speech. It's not at all what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment.Cressman examines how courts have foiled attempts to limit campaign spending, details what a constitutional amendment limiting paid speech should say, and reveals an overlooked political tool concerned citizens can use to help gain the amendment's passage. Seven times before in our history we have approved constitutional amendments to overturn wrongheaded rulings by the Supreme Court—there's no reason we can't do it again.
Synopsis
Special-interest money is destroying our democratic process. But now that the
Citizens United decision has thrown out campaign spending limits as abridgments of free speech, Americans want to know what they can do about it. Derek Cressman gives us the tools, both intellectual and tactical, to fight back.
There's nothing inherently unconstitutional in limiting the amount of speech, Cressman insists. We do it all the time--for example, cities control when and where demonstrations can take place or how long people can speak at council meetings. Moreover, he argues that while you choose to patronize Fox News, MSNBC, the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal, political advertising is forced upon you. It's not really free speech at all--it's paid speech. It's not at all what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment.
Cressman examines how courts have foiled attempts to limit campaign spending, details what a constitutional amendment limiting paid speech should say, and reveals an overlooked political tool concerned citizens can use to help gain the amendment's passage. Seven times before in our history we have approved constitutional amendments to overturn wrongheaded rulings by the Supreme Court--there's no reason we can't do it again.
About the Author
Derek Cressman has worked professionally to strengthen campaign finance laws since 1995 as director of the state
PIRGs' Democracy Program and vice president of state operations with Common Cause. He ran for California secretary of state in the June 2014 primary.Thom Hartmann is a nationally and internationally syndicated talkshow host whose radio and TV shows are available in over a billion homes nationwide. He is the author of 24 books, most recently the bestselling The Crash of 2016.
Table of Contents
NEW STRATEGY: Cressman argues political advertising isn't free speech, it's paid speech and so shouldn't be subject to the same protections.PRACTICAL TOOLS: Describes both what a Constitutional amendment to limit money in politics should say, and an overlooked tactic voters can use to get it passed.
NETWORKED Author - Cressman is planning a major promotional push with a 16-city tour, publicity campaign, and major grassroots marketing campaign around the Yes on 49 campaign in 2016.