The Seventh Circuit and Judge Posner ask this court to answer a certified question about the meaning of "persons" in ic 3-9-3-2.5.
Are the only persons candidates, candidates committees, party committees, and PACs? Are the rest of us unpersons?

There are factors weighing on both sides of whether "persons" should be construed broadly or narrowly.

Broad: evenhanded. effectiveness - necessary and proper. Plain meaning. Statutory definition. History and practice.
Actual intent of legislature.

Narrow:
By reading the terms of 3-9-3-1 into the term "persons" in 3-9-3-2.5, the burden on free speech and due process is reduced.
It now threatens less innocent conduct, since candidates and committees will be better informed about the statute than joe six-pack.
If the state interest has something to do with avoiding dirty tricks by opponants, limiting the reach of the statute helps narrowly tailor it to that problem.






Narrower:
In BAPAC v Baldwin, this court decided that the legislature had intended to incorporate the holdings of Buckley v. Valeo into a statute.Buckley was a case in which the Libertarian Party was found to have the right to establish a right of privacy such that it would not have to file campaign finace reports. The court went on to find that the party had not met its evidentiary burden. See Socialist Workers 74 campaign committee.
Similarly here this court could decide that the legislature had intended to incorporate the holdings of Stewart v Taylor,
and find that 3-9-3-2.5 can only be applied to "false malicious defamatory" material which lacks the disclaimer.
The court would also need to impute a mens rea requirement into the statute to avoid the problem of Smith v California and Indiana v Keubal.

The Seventh Circuit and Judge Posner ask this court to answer a certified question about the meaning of "persons" in ic 3-9-3-2.5.
Are the only persons candidates, candidates committees, party committees, and PACs? Are the rest of us unpersons?

There are factors weighing on both sides of whether "persons" should be construed broadly or narrowly.

pro
con


However, of course, both are unconstitutional.

3:04 am april 12

forgot what i came here for.