Northwestern University News Release

Northwestern Exert Addresses Campaign Finance Reform in "Money Talks"

CHICAGO ---Martin Redish, the Louis and Harriet Ancel Professor of Law and Public Policy at Northwestern University School of Law, deconstructs attacks on corporate and commercial speech in a forthcoming book titled "Money Talks: Speech, Economic Power and the Values of Democracy,"

Overall, the book, which will be published in June by New York University, exposes the left-leaning politics behind those attacks on commercial speech.

Redish is an acclaimed scholar on issues of free expression, federal jurisdiction and civil procedure, who, as an expert witness before U.S. Senate and House of Representatives committees, has testified on the constitutionality of a number of issues important to the nation. He was among the experts who weighed in heavily on the recent election litigation, talking with major media and quoted extensively throughout the chaotic period leading up to the final decision confirming President George Bush’s presidency.

Though his own politics tend to be liberal, Redish said he does not view the Constitution as an outgrowth of his own political agenda.

"The First Amendment does not permit campaign regulators to selectively curb the influence of a particular point of view -- even a pro-business one," he argues in the book’s chapter on campaign finance reform.

Liberals have a normal negative reflex to money, Redish said. "That reflex clouds their ability to recognize that the kinds of rights they value are as implicated by campaign finance regulation as they are when any expression is silenced."

Redish attacks the idea that contributions are not fully protected expression. "If money talks, then the limit on money silences," said Redish. "It is a very simple point that seems to be forgotten here."

It is a major fallacy to assume that restricting the speech of Candidate A will somehow increase the speech of Candidate B, he said. "Say, for example, Candidate B can only spend $50,000 and Candidate A can spend $100,000. It simply is not true that by limiting Candidate A to $50,000 that you having increased B’s ability to speak. Rather you have increased equality of ignorance, which is inconsistent with the values of the First Amendment."

Wholly apart from First Amendment arguments, Redish points to the confusion the Supreme Court has caused in trying to formulate a coherent campaign finance regulation system. "In 1976 the Supreme Court said limits on contributions are okay, but limits on spending aren’t," said Redish. "Basically it said those with a lot of money can spend like drunken sailors, but those who want to compete with them now have one hand tied behind their backs in trying to raise money to compete."

3/27/01