Thursday, January 21, 2010

McCain-Feingold Reversed

Looks like the McCain-Feingold suppression of political speach law has been seriously reversed.
The ruling represents a tremendous victory for free speech and a serious blow to proponents of campaign-finance “reform,” who have roundly denounced the ruling and have all but predicted the downfall of the Republic as a result. But the reformers’ rhetoric is just that; the Court’s ruling will simply result in a more diverse mix of political speech, and that is a good thing for American democracy.

The ruling in Citizens United is a straightforward application of basic First Amendment principles: “When Government seeks to use its full power . . . to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
I have to say, I really am fascinated at just how many of the Dems are coming down against this. Especially telling is the fact that all the liberal justices dissented from most of the findings. So much for those bastions protecting your rights. I just don't see why the politicos on both sides can't realize that those rights were codified because they were of extreme value. Get Obambi's whine:
"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. ... We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision." - President Barack Obama.
What forceful response would you like? And what response would not be unconstitutional? It's a victory for everyone, not just big companies.

Also, the disclosure and disclaimer parts of the bill are still standing. If anything this is the part that will aid in transparency and detection of corruption.

** Disclosure requirement: Any corporation that spends more than $10,000 in a year to produce or air the kind of election season ad covered by federal restrictions must file a report with the Federal Election Commission revealing the names and addresses of anyone who contributed $1,000 or more to the ad’s preparation or distribution.

** Disclaimer requirement: If a political ad is not authorized by a candidate or a political committee, the broadcast of the ad must say who is responsible for its content, plus the name and address of the group behind the ad.

Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter as the Court upheld those requirements.

I understand the finding is very large, so it will be interesting to see what comes out in the analysis.

No comments: