Is this legal?

[mkeller]

I've been thinking about printing a bunch of fliers exposing Ron Kind (my rep)'s vote for the bailout. Kinda like the CFL ones, only more forceful, and encouraging people to vote for Kevin Barrett, the Libertarian candidate in my district. I'd then pass these out to people, or leave them on doorsteps.

But there's the big question: can I do this? Ron Paul encouraged people to give out slimjims back when he was running, so that must be legal, but are non-campaign people allowed to go door-to-door and lit drop?

[politicsNproverbs]

I don't see why not. There is no law -- yet -- that prevents people from going door to door. That has already been fought in the Supreme Court by religious groups who do the same, and so far they always win. And often they leave literature at not-at-homes, so I don't see any difference if you leave political literature. Go for it!

Sometimes cities using their own ordinances have tried to stop the religious groups, but when they are shown the historical Supreme Court cases, they usually have to back down. There was just such an incident in 2002 up in Ohio...

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/stratton.html


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., et al., PETITIONERS
v.
VILLAGE OF STRATTON et al.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

June 17, 2002

Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioners contend that a village ordinance making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment. Through this facial challenge, we consider the door-to-door canvassing regulation not only as it applies to religious proselytizing, but also to anonymous political speech and the distribution of handbills.
[...]
Indeed, on the “No Solicitation Forms” provided to the residents, the canvassers include “Camp Fire Girls,” “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” “Political Candidates,” “Trick or Treaters during Halloween Season,” and “Persons Affiliated with Stratton Church.” The ordinance unquestionably applies, not only to religious causes, but to political activity as well. It would seem to extend to “residents casually soliciting the votes of neighbors,” or ringing doorbells to enlist support for employing a more efficient garbage collector.

The mere fact that the ordinance covers so much speech raises constitutional concerns. It is offensive–not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society–that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so. Even if the issuance of permits by the mayor’s office is a ministerial task that is performed promptly and at no cost to the applicant, a law
requiring a permit to engage in such speech constitutes a dramatic departure from our national heritage and constitutional tradition....

Three obvious examples illustrate the pernicious effect of such a permit requirement. First, as our cases involving distribution of unsigned handbills demonstrate, there are a significant number of persons who support causes anonymously....Second, requiring a permit as a prior condition on the exercise of the right to speak imposes an objective burden on some speech of citizens holding religious or patriotic views.....Third, there is a significant amount of spontaneous speech that is effectively banned by the ordinance. A person who made a decision on a holiday or a weekend to take an active part in a political campaign could not begin to pass out handbills until after he or she obtained the required permit. Even a spontaneous decision to go across the street and urge a neighbor to vote against the mayor could not lawfully be implemented without first obtaining the mayor’s permission.....

The breadth and unprecedented nature of this regulation does not alone render the ordinance invalid. Also central to our conclusion that the ordinance does not pass First Amendment scrutiny is that it is not tailored to the Village’s stated interests. Even if the interest in preventing fraud could adequately support the ordinance insofar as it applies to commercial transactions and the solicitation of funds, that interest provides no support for its application to petitioners, to political campaigns, or to enlisting support for unpopular causes.
[...]

Excellent, eh? Seems the Watchtower has been good for something after all... they have been involved in about 40 Supreme Court cases over the years, most all having to do with freedom of speech, religion, etc. and AFAIK, they won them all. (No, I'm not a JW nor am I promoting the WT for anything except what they have accomplished in the arena of free speech).

Anyway, if you go handing out or leaving flyers at homes and run into a problem, just refer whoever to this court case. :D

Just found a June 17, 2002, Reuters article on this case posted at the Watchtower's website:
http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/index.php/jws-vs-the-world/religious-group-may-solicit-supreme-court-rules/


Religious Group May Solicit, Supreme Court Rules
June 17th, 2002

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that an ordinance requiring Jehovah’s Witnesses or other door-to-door advocates for religious or political causes to get a permit violates free-speech rights.

The high court ruled for a local congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, a nonprofit publisher of church literature, in striking down the law regulating uninvited peddling and solicitation.

The justices, by a 8-1 vote, ruled the ordinance in the tiny village of Stratton, Ohio, infringed on the rights of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a faith whose members go from house to house speaking about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The decision added to a number of Supreme Court rulings in the 1930s and 1940s that the Jehovah’s Witnesses won on First Amendment issues.

Justice John Paul Stevens said for the court majority that the law, as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech and the distribution of handbills violated First Amendment free-speech protections.

The law at issue covered “canvassers, solicitors, peddlers (or) hawkers” who go to private homes for the purpose of “advertising, promoting, selling and/or explaining any product, service, organization or cause.”

Individuals first must register with the city, providing their name and address, their cause, why they were canvassing, which homes they intended to go to and how long they planned to solicit.

A permit would be provided unless the mayor determined the applicant failed to complete the form, provided fraudulent information, made false statements or misrepresentations while canvassing, violated any laws or engaged in trespassing.

The permits must be displayed upon demand by any resident.

Individuals were allowed to go door-to-door from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., so long as the owner of a residence had not filed a “No Solicitation Form” with the city and had not posted a “No Solicitation Sign” on the property.

While the “No Solicitation Form” listed several organizations by name, the only religious group cited was the Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Stevens said a U.S. appeals court was wrong in upholding the law. He said the high court for more than 50 years has, on First Amendment grounds, invalidated restrictions on door-to-door canvassing and pamphleteering by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

He said the ordinances applied to a significant number of noncommercial canvassers promoting a wide variety of causes.

Stevens rejected the village’s argument that the ordinance was valid because it protects the privacy of residents and prevents fraud or other types of crime.

He said it seemed unlikely the lack of permit would stop criminals from knocking on doors and there was no evidence of a special crime problem related to such solicitation.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist was the lone dissenter. He said the ruling deprived residents of the degree of “accountability and safety” the permit requirement provided.

[Andrew Ryan]

Go for it lol

[mkeller]

That Supreme Court case looks hopeful . . . but does the McCain-Feingold bill complicate any of that? My dad said that he had heard that if you spend more than so much on a campaign (or pass out more than a certain amount of fliers), you have to be registered as a PAC/special interest. Or would that be the $2300 everyone was talking about in the primaries? I haven't enough time or money to spend that much, so in that case I'd be safe, but I'd kinda prefer not to go to jail or pay a fine or anything. :)

[rwbris18]

I've been thinking about printing a bunch of fliers exposing Ron Kind (my rep)'s vote for the bailout. Kinda like the CFL ones, only more forceful, and encouraging people to vote for Kevin Barrett, the Libertarian candidate in my district. I'd then pass these out to people, or leave them on doorsteps.

But there's the big question: can I do this? Ron Paul encouraged people to give out slimjims back when he was running, so that must be legal, but are non-campaign people allowed to go door-to-door and lit drop?

Why don't you take out a 30 second radio ad? :eek:

[LibertyEagle]

I've been thinking about printing a bunch of fliers exposing Ron Kind (my rep)'s vote for the bailout. Kinda like the CFL ones, only more forceful, and encouraging people to vote for Kevin Barrett, the Libertarian candidate in my district. I'd then pass these out to people, or leave them on doorsteps.

But there's the big question: can I do this? Ron Paul encouraged people to give out slimjims back when he was running, so that must be legal, but are non-campaign people allowed to go door-to-door and lit drop?

Sure it is. We weren't "campaign people" either.

Go for it.

[jeepndesert]

i think mccain-feingold is limited to radio, television, and newspaper advertising.

some states, like missouri, have ethics laws, and will arrest you for "spreading lies" about obama.

[jeepndesert]

Why don't you take out a 30 second radio ad? :eek:

mccain-feingold banned radio, television, and newspaper ads which criticize a candidate on a issue 60 days before a general election, 30 days before a primary. it was sold as campaign finance reform banning non-profit groups from advertising against a candidate.

[ItsTime]

mccain-feingold banned radio, television, and newspaper ads which criticize a candidate on a issue 60 days before a general election, 30 days before a primary. it was sold as campaign finance reform banning non-profit groups from advertising against a candidate.

Really? Ive been seeing Obama's people running a lot of anti-McCain ads this week.

[dr. hfn]

it better be legal!

[jeepndesert]

Really? Ive been seeing Obama's people running a lot of anti-McCain ads this week.

official campaigns can run the ads since they are regulated by the fec. other groups not strictly regulated by the fec can't run the ads.