Today the Supreme Court upheld much of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law: “Divided Court says Government can ban “Soft Money.” I have to say that as an amateur legal pundit, I’m a little stunned. The Court has always upheld that money equals speech for the same reasons that, say, the government could not restrict the press from spending whatever they wanted. But the political money/political speech argument is at least debatable. On this issue, however, I was completely floored:
“The court also voted 5-4 to uphold restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television and radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates.”As the kids say: “Duh!” Of course political opponents attack each other in the run-up to an election. The Supreme Court has now decided when and how much we can spend on free speech; is it a matter of time before they decide what we can say?
This is a shameful, backwards opinion and a genuine erosion of first amendment rights. I can’t wait to read Justice Scalia’s comments and the next George Will article. (Question: does Scalia have to conclude his dissent with: “My name is Antonin Scalia and I approve of this dissent”?)
No comments:
Post a Comment