“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

— Amendment I, U.S. Constitution

“Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.”

— Article I, Section 8, New York State Constitution

“A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money.”

— Buckley v. Valeo, per curiam, U.S. Supreme Court, 1976

“The Court has long viewed the First Amendment as protecting a marketplace for the clash of different views and conflicting ideas. That concept has been stated and restated almost since the Constitution was drafted.”

— Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, Chief Justice Burger’s majority opinion, U.S. Supreme Court, 1981

“No individual, partnership, political committee, employee organization, corporation or other entity shall make, either directly or by transfer, any contribution or contributions, which in the aggregate shall exceed the limitations for contributions for the office of mayor, as set forth in…the administrative code, to support or oppose a new or revised city charter, or an amendment to the charter or administrative code.”

— Proposed local law, introduced into the New York City Council by Council Member David Weprin, June 5, 2003

Far be it from us to deliver a lecture to our city’s august legislators on the subject of the law, but those considering throwing their support behind the bill proposed yesterday by Council Member David Weprin might want to have a look at the founding documents of our democracy before doing so. They may also want to browse the Supreme Court’s recent writings on the subject of restricting individuals’ personal expenditures in the political arena, as Mr. Weprin’s bill would do.

As our Jacob Gershman reports at Page 1, Mr. Weprin’s bill would prevent individuals and other associations from spending in excess of $4,950 in support or opposition to proposed revisions of the city’s charter — with an eye toward defeating Mayor Bloomberg expected attempt to establish nonpartisan elections. Council Member David Yassky — sponsor of a similar bill aimed exclusively at the mayor — calls this new bill “about right.” Speaker Gifford Miller, Mr. Weprin says, found the bill “interesting.” We have another word for it, and it’s the one the mayor’s office has been using: unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court erred many years ago in the case of Buckley v. Valeo, which opened the door to restrictions on Americans’ free-speech rights. But even in that case the Court upheld only restrictions on campaign contributions, not on campaign expenditures. The Court’s reasoning was that excessive campaign contributions could lead to corruption or the appearance thereof. No such concerns applied to the amount a campaign spent. The Court also upheld restrictions of expenditures on “express advocacy” at the time, but that applied to advocacy of candidates, which is arguably analogous to a campaign contribution.

For further illumination of the matter, one need only turn to the case of Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, a case decided by the Court in 1981. There, the City of Berkeley placed a limitation of $250 on contributions to committees formed to support or oppose ballot measures. The Court struck this provision down in an eight-to-one decision, excerpted above. The chief justice, Warren Burger, wrote for the majority: “The restraint imposed by the Berkeley ordinance on rights of association and in turn on individual and collective rights of expression plainly contravenes both the right of association and the speech guarantees of the First Amendment.”

For our part, we can’t see any daylight between the unconstitutional Berkeley ordinance and the law proposed by Mr. Weprin. The dollar amounts are different, but the principle is identical. Afraid of facing off in the public square, members of the City Council are trying to find a back-alley bypass of the constitutions of both the United States and the State of New York. We don’t wish them luck, and we don’t suspect they’ll be blessed by it.