The Volokh Conspiracy - Banning Cartoons of Candidates + Banning Disparagement of Candidates Without Opponents' Permission + Limiting Distribution of Information on Legislators' Votes:

That's what IowaHouse Bill 229 (introduced by Richard Anderson and Mary Mascher) would do:

3. A person shall not distribute any campaign material concerning a target candidate with the intent to encourage the recipient of that campaign material to vote against that target candidate, without first ... obtaining, in writing, the prior consent of the beneficiary candidate to the distribution of the campaign material.

4. A person shall not distribute any campaign material that contains a cartoon, caricature, or defacement of the personal likeness of a target candidate.

5. A person shall not distribute any campaign material that contains photographs or other depictions of human role playing, except of a candidate who has approved the campaign material.

6. A person shall not distribute any campaign material regarding a vote cast by a target candidate who is a member of a house of the general assembly if a majority of the membership of the house of which the target candidate is a member voted in the same manner as the target candidate and if the majority of those members of that house of the general assembly who are affiliated with the political party which is not the party of the target candidate voted in the same manner as the target candidate.

7. Campaign material that refers to a prior vote cast by a target candidate on an issue must disclose all of the following:
a. The total votes cast for and against the issue.
b. The total votes cast on the issue by members of each political party of the membership of the legislative chamber of which the target candidate is a member.

Thanks to Prof. Rick Hasen (Election Law Blog), who has more on this. He and I of course agree that this proposal is blatantly unconstitutional.

Related Posts (on one page):

This Cartoon Could Be Illegal, If Two Iowa Legislators Have Their Way:
Banning Cartoons of Candidates + Banning Disparagement of Candidates Without Opponents' Permission + Limiting Distribution of Information on Legislators' Votes:

(link)

KenB (mail):

It is frightening that we have law makers who themselves cannot immediately conclude that the proposal is (A) unconstitutional and (b) utterly inconsistent with free political discussion. Such lawmakers must really be afraid of voters.

3.10.2009 5:54pm

einhverfr (mail) (www):

Nah. I think the way the discourse works is that passing a blatantly unconstitutional law is intentional and designed to:

1) Provide an appearance that the legislator is doing something about a problem (real or not)

2) Blame the courts for refusing to do something about the problem.

3.10.2009 5:58pm

Randy R. (mail):

As appalling as this is, it's just a bill that was introduced by two idiots. This would be news only if the Iowa legislature actually passed such a bill.

3.10.2009 5:59pm

ShelbyC:

Well, if it outlawed spending money to create the specified campaign literature the bill would be OK, because anyone with half a brain knows that money isn't speech.

3.10.2009 6:06pm

ohwilleke:

It is hard to tell if this is serious, or is an attempt to make a point. I looked for press coverage and wasn't able to find it. The bill is now a month old, and it has seen no legislative action beyond its initial introduction and assignment to a subcommittee.

It could also be a sacrificial play, that wastes opponents times fighting the unconstitutional elements, in an effort to pass a much narrow amended bill in the end, with provisions that would have been controversial if introduced alone.

Then again, maybe Iowa legislators just hate the constitution.

3.10.2009 6:13pm

A.S.:

A person shall not distribute any campaign material that contains photographs or other depictions of human role playing

What the heck is human role playing?

Does this refer to pictures of people throwing 20-sided dice and arguing with a dungeonmaster?

3.10.2009 6:14pm

Sasha Volokh (mail) (www):

So basically this post and the adjoining one establishes that everyone named Rick (three, so far) thinks that things are blatantly unconstitutional?

3.10.2009 6:21pm

Human role playing refers to having actors do things that you wish you could catch your idiot opponents doing on camera.

3.10.2009 6:52pm

BZ (mail):

Hmm, not such a new idea.

Check out the Federal Election Commission's 1993-94 attempt to stop people from raising money by using a candidate's name without authorization. Designed to protect candidates from seeing people sending money to organizations just using their names, it had the curious effect of also banning those who wanted to raise money to oppose candidates, unless the candidates authorized the use of their name. I formed "Citizens Against David Duke," filed an NPRM, and the FEC revised the rule to permit those who oppose candidates to fundraise without their target's permission.
http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/1994/1994-5.pdf

3.10.2009 6:54pm

Real American (mail):

bipartisan unconstitutionality! that's progress!

3.10.2009 7:58pm

ChrisIowa (mail):

This only proves that both the Republican and Democrat parties of Iowa are both whacked out, which I don't need this to establish. The Democrats are far to the left of the national Democrat Party and the Republicans are far to the social right of the national Republican Party.

Please forgive me I am doing what I can.

3.10.2009 8:25pm

Owen Hutchins (mail):

Yet more proof that idiocy is not limited as to political party.

3.10.2009 8:42pm

krs:

further to Sasha's post, if, all else being equal, you're interested in having more laws struck down as unconstitutional, you should lobby in favor of more people named Rick being nominated to the bench during this Administration.

3.10.2009 8:54pm

Wilpert Archibald Gobsmacked (mail):

At last, functional proof of what I.O.W.A. really stands for.

3.10.2009 8:58pm

Sarcastro (www):

Rick-based politics remind me of Hitler.

3.10.2009 9:03pm

Cornellian (mail):

Remember this example the next time someone wants to lecture you about deferring to the judgment of the elected branches.

3.10.2009 9:37pm

Sagar:

This is just an incremental encroachment on political speech - not a quantum leap - and may not be struck down by courts. Remember Campaig Finance REFORM and how all three branches of govt failed us?

Thanks, effing McCain and you too Feingold!

3.10.2009 10:18pm

well, I realize it has not passed into law yet - but if these bastards keep trying it is only a matter of time before ...

3.10.2009 10:20pm

Splunge:

What about the principle of separation of Rick and State? Is the state of Iowa exempt or something?

3.10.2009 10:39pm

TikiPundit (mail):

Anyone up for cartoons of Anderson and Mascher as they propose this ridiculous bill? The possibilities are nearly endless.

3.10.2009 10:49pm

Fidelity (mail) (www):

Is it any wonder that New Hampshire is trying to pass the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions again?

3.11.2009 1:07pm

James Gibson (mail):

I know I'm never going to hear then end of this, but I don't have a problem with section three. To me its important that groups or individuals planning to release what amounts to a Political hit-job against some legislation or candidate, get the approval of the candidate or group most benefiting from the distribution. We have all seen the kind of material distributed by say the Daily Kos that benefited first John Dean, then Kerry and now Barrack that were total fabs. But you can't point a finger at those campaigns, because they simply deny any fore-knowledge of the material.

3.11.2009 1:32pm

Yankev (mail):

Good point, James Gibson. Let's just legislate rights out of existence because we don't like the way some people have exercised them. Any portion of the Bill of Rights that has been abused should simply be ignored. After all, think of the criminals who have gone free because of the pesky fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. Think of how the free exercise clause has been used to enables animal sacrifices. Yes, why let the constitution stand in the way of needed reform?

3.11.2009 2:18pm

Adam J:

It's so nice to see members of both political parties working together...

3.11.2009 2:41pm

Dan Weber (www):

If I hate candidate A, I can't encourage people to vote against him without getting the consent of candidate B? What if I dislike candidate B?

3.11.2009 2:42pm

Excellent question. Take it a step further. Supposed candidates B and C are running against A. Do I need consent from both B and C, or just one of them?

Does the answer change if my ad criticisze A on an issue where B's position is closer to A's than C's is?

And does that answer change if B is nonetheless more likely than C to benefit if A withdraws or is defeated?

Then B would be happy, so very, very happy.

3.11.2009 4:07pm

Cornfed (mail):

W.A.G., you'll never convince me that I Oughta Went to Ames.

3.11.2009 11:35pm

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.