Voter registration has traditionally been a function and responsibility of state and local governments in our federal system.  All but one of the fifty states has some form of voter registration for eligible voters. South Dakota is the exception.  Eligible voters are often called “electors” in the Federal Constitution and state constitutions. Typically, an “elector” for elections of members of Congress must meet the qualifications applicable for “electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature” (Article I, section 2), which generally include being at least18 years of age, a resident of the state, not imprisoned or on parole for the commission of a felony offense, and a United States citizen. Forty two states currently have voter registration systems with 15 or 30 day registration deadlines for voting in state elections.  Seven states currently allow “election day” or “same day” voter registration: Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

The Fairness Doctrine did not arise with the re-birth of AM talk radio.  The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted the Fairness Doctrine as a formal rule in 1949 in its "Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees."  13 F.C.C. 1246 (1949).  In 1959, Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 to formalize the Fairness Doctrine into law.  Congress rewrote 315(a) to read:  "A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance."  In essence, the Fairness Doctrine had two components. First, it required that each broadcast licensee carry some coverage of controversial issues of public importance.  Second, it required what was commonly known as a "reasonable balance" in the coverage of those issues in a station's overall programming.

The right to free speech, including the right to speak out about who should be elected to public office, is a fundamental American right, essential to democratic debate. So, too, is the right of individuals to band together and pool their resources to make their advocacy more eff ective. Th e Founders recognized this, and enshrined the rights to both free speech and association in the First Amendment. But ever since the Supreme Court’s seminal campaign-finance decision in Buckley v. Valeo, speakers have been forced to choose between these rights. Specifi cally, while an individual acting alone may spend unlimited amounts of their own money on ads that call for the defeat or election of federal candidates, groups of individuals may pool no more than $5,000 per person to run identical ads. You can speak freely, or you can associate freely, but you cannot do both. Th is paradox, an unintended result of the Supreme Court’s fi rst major campaign-fi nance ruling, has gone unconsidered for more than 30 years. But that is about to change, thanks to a legal challenge by a new citizens group, SpeechNow.org, which is on a fast track to the en banc D.C. Circuit....

In a “clean elections” system, taxpayer funded candidates must agree to limit their campaign spending. Imposing limits on campaign spending for candidates who forego taxpayer dollars and instead run traditional campaigns would be unconstitutional. Most clean elections schemes thus rely on “matching,” “rescue,” or “trigger” funds to level the playing fi eld between publicly funded and traditional candidates and to discourage traditional candidates from exceeding the spending limits imposed on the taxpayer funded candidate. When a traditional candidate raises or spends more money than the taxpayer fi nanced candidate’s initial subsidy, the government gives additional money to the taxpayer fi nanced candidate to counteract the amount the privately fi nanced candidate collects or spends. In other words, once a privately financed candidate raises or spends above the “trigger” amount, her exercise of her First Amendment rights results in a direct government subsidy to her opponent. For almost a decade, federal courts have largely upheld such systems against First Amendment challenges. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Davis v. FEC undermines the reasoning of these decisions and likely spells the end of this new wave of regulating political speech....