Should STOP HILLARY PAC have to drop Hillary from name?

[EMNofSeattle]

So a conservative PAC has been ordered to drop Hillary from it's name

Anti-Hillary Clinton Group Refuses to Change Name, Defying FEC Order - Washington Wire - WSJ

Basically election rules state that a PAC not affiliated with a particular candidate can't use that candidates name.

This is intended to avoid confusion between a PAC authorized by a candidate and one that's not.

Enter "stop Hillary" PAC. They've been ordered to drop the name Hillary and they're refusing, on the basis that no one will confuse stop Hillary as being approved by Mrs Clinton and they have a first amendment right. Thoughts?

 

[Summerwind]

So a conservative PAC has been ordered to drop Hillary from it's name

Anti-Hillary Clinton Group Refuses to Change Name, Defying FEC Order - Washington Wire - WSJ

Basically election rules state that a PAC not affiliated with a particular candidate can't use that candidates name.

This is intended to avoid confusion between a PAC authorized by a candidate and one that's not.

Enter "stop Hillary" PAC. They've been ordered to drop the name Hillary and they're refusing, on the basis that no one will confuse stop Hillary as being approved by Mrs Clinton and they have a first amendment right. Thoughts?

They are right, they have a 1st amendment right to have a stop Hillary organization, however it may not be able to be the PAC tax and disclosure status that they had hoped for.

 

[fmw]

Thoughts?

Yawn.

 

[Helix]

Should STOP HILLARY PAC have to drop Hillary from name?

i'd rather that they and other superpacs be required to make donor information public. as for what they call themselves, i don't GAF. knowing who is trying to purchase government is far more important.

 

[iliveonramen]

So a conservative PAC has been ordered to drop Hillary from it's name

Anti-Hillary Clinton Group Refuses to Change Name, Defying FEC Order - Washington Wire - WSJ

Basically election rules state that a PAC not affiliated with a particular candidate can't use that candidates name.

This is intended to avoid confusion between a PAC authorized by a candidate and one that's not.

Enter "stop Hillary" PAC. They've been ordered to drop the name Hillary and they're refusing, on the basis that no one will confuse stop Hillary as being approved by Mrs Clinton and they have a first amendment right. Thoughts?

I think it's better to just not allow PAC's to include a candidates name than creating creating some grey area where you can.

 

[Hard Truth]

The name "Stop Hillary" appears to be an accurate description of the group's intent, so I see no good reason to prohibit it. The prohibition should be made more specific in order to achieve the intended goal (which I assume is to prevent deception or confusion) without infringing on group's prerogative to choose the name of their choice.

 

[DA60]

Oh Jeezzz.

We still have a year+ to go with all this stupid, pathetic, loser, election 2016 crap.


News for you people...whomever is elected will be absolutely horrible and will leave America in much worse shape then when they took office.

Anyone who actually thinks ANY of the front running candidates is anything but corrupt and useless has no idea what they are talking about on this subject and I am begging them to not vote for the next POTUS.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

They are right, they have a 1st amendment right to have a stop Hillary organization, however it may not be able to be the PAC tax and disclosure status that they had hoped for.

I would argue that it's a first amendment violation to not give them the tax status, as you are repressing the group using tax laws that would otherwise apply

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The name "Stop Hillary" appears to be an accurate description of the group's intent, so I see no good reason to prohibit it. The prohibition should be made more specific in order to achieve the intended goal (which I assume is to prevent deception or confusion) without infringing on group's prerogative to choose the name of their choice.

This is exactly what I'm thinking

 

[Summerwind]

I would argue that it's a first amendment violation to not give them the tax status, as you are repressing the group using tax laws that would otherwise apply

Then as usual we disagree. First amendment doesn't guarantee all businesses and organizations can have the same tax status regardless of what they do. It's the facts, end of discussion as far as I can tell. They can freely express themselves, but apparently will lose their protected donor and tax status, makes sense to me, though imo no PAC should have the protected donor status.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Then as usual we disagree. First amendment doesn't guarantee all businesses and organizations can have the same tax status regardless of what they do. It's the facts, end of discussion as far as I can tell. They can freely express themselves, but apparently will lose their protected donor and tax status, makes sense to me, though imo no PAC should have the protected donor status.

Except PACs DO get preferable tax status, I actually agree with you in that they should not, but if they are then you must treat them as equally as possible to adhere to the first amendment, in my philosophy government is justified in regulating for the following reasons

1) real or reasonable perceived risk of danger
2) coercion or force
3) deception or fraud

1 and 2 do not apply here

3) the rules should be narrowly tailored to prevent deception. If a PAC is sending out material that a reasonable person of average intelligence would mistake for being affiliated wih that candidate that's one thing, a fundraising card from "stop Hillary" with political materials obviously opposing MRS Clinton does not quAlify,

 

[Summerwind]

Except PACs DO get preferable tax status, I actually agree with you in that they should not, but if they are then you must treat them as equally as possible to adhere to the first amendment, in my philosophy government is justified in regulating for the following reasons

1) real or reasonable perceived risk of danger
2) coercion or force
3) deception or fraud

1 and 2 do not apply here

3) the rules should be narrowly tailored to prevent deception. If a PAC is sending out material that a reasonable person of average intelligence would mistake for being affiliated wih that candidate that's one thing, a fundraising card from "stop Hillary" with political materials obviously opposing MRS Clinton does not quAlify,

They are only a PAC if they go by the rules for PACs. The rules say no candidate by name, not no candidate by name if it's mentioned positively. So they are NOT a PAC and shouldn't get PAC perks. Granted the reasons for no name seem to be to avoid collusion, but it isn't what the rules regarding using a name say, they simply say no candidate names.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

They are only a PAC if they go by the rules for PACs. The rules say no candidate by name, not no candidate by name if it's mentioned positively. So they are NOT a PAC and shouldn't get PAC perks. Granted the reasons for no name seem to be to avoid collusion, but it isn't what the rules regarding using a name say, they simply say no candidate names.

Nope, as you have described is not legal, if this goes to SCOTUS it will be overturned, if you offer a special tax rate to political groups it is a first amendment violation to deny that benefit based on content of speech with no compelling government interest (which there is not here)

 

[Paschendale]

Who cares what a PAC is called? It's not like they actually operate independently from their chosen candidates. It's not like they foster free speech or free elections. The whole money in elections system is completely corrupt. Arguing over this point is like trying to figure out whether you'd like eight life sentences in prison or nine. You're already screwed beyond any meaningful measure.

 

[SocialDemocrat]

Yeah, in agreement with many others before me, Super PACs should obviously be banned, and this debate over one's name is a meaningless waste of time.