As to McCain/Feingold, the money angle is important and the law was designed to remove unfair advantages but a better approach might be to simply educate the public about it--use some public service announcements to explain what's going on then let the chips fall. We can handle it.
But that's not the case. Politicians seem to be developing an ever-growing sense that the electorate has no sense and therefore must be protected from itself. It's the same mindset that spurs talk of reviving the 'fairness doctrine' because Limbaugh dominates AM radio or of ramming an immigration bill down our throats before anyone can possibly understand or debate it. "Danger, Will Robinson" is all that comes to mind.
Besides, if everyone was as dumb as they assume wouldn't we just tune out the issue ads anyway, like we do with most of the others before an election?
Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia voted in the majority, with the money quote coming from Roberts:
"Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues also may be pertinent in an election. Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."There are limits to free speech but when it comes to elections we can't let the politicians become the arbiters. Bravo SCOTUS.
No comments:
Post a Comment