Eminent civil libertarian warns of imminent threat to “free speech rights,” not to mention all other “rights.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20031221-100048-6898r
Nice article, elendil. When Nat Hentoff, the ACLU, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas all agree on something, that’ll make your ears perk up. GOP and Democrats have come together to suppress speech and make themselves stronger in the name of campaign reform.
When Nat Hentoff, the ACLU, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas all agree on something…
Don’t forget Tony Kennedy–apparently the A.M. coin toss landed him on Scalia’s side for this one. 
This is just an example of why campaign commercials need a governor to level out the playing field a little. I doubt if Americans are generally in favor of groups or individuals with the most money having the most influence on voters just prior to elections. The richest can still run the ads, it just can’t be done during the critical time around elections. As I understand it, these campaign advertisements can still be run during elections as long as the commercial is run through a PAC (Political Action Committee) which is required to file and name all contributions and contributors.
The problem in the past has affected both parties. Advertisements that have been potentially misleading have been last minute efforts with no time for politicians to respond till it’s too late. And surely there’s been distortion from both sides. This will help restore faith in the system with those who too often have been the gulible victims of big-money sponsored ads. I’m sure it will affect both sides…the NRA and the Sierra Club.
Scalia is an extraordinary jurist. His dissents
are brilliant, agree with them or not.
I haven’t read the majority, however,
and don’t know their reasons.
Anybody have a synopsis?
That’s one for Bloomfield. Yo, Bloomie! Where are ya when we need you?
This isn’t a synopsis of the decision, but here are two column length opinion pieces and a longish analysis of what it means in practice. Not pretty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9997-2003Dec17?language=printer
http://www.azcentral.com/news/opinions/columns/articles/1219robb19.html#
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2003/1219nj1.htm#
Yeah, it’s a sad day when the supreme court abrogates our right to the best government money can buy…
I guessed I was just mixed up by this part:
Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech
While I don’t like negative hit-and-run campaign commercials either, I think limiting the content of commercials is the “greater evil”. What if important issues develop in the 60 days before the election? Why should discussion of them be limited? For some of the same people who are strongly against the Patriot Act to turn around and support this is hard to understand.
Outabreath wrote:
Yeah, it’s a sad day when the supreme court abrogates our right to the best government money can buy…
But what a wonderful world, when we can just pass laws and ensure that money will no longer corrupt politics. And what a wonderful world, when we can trust our legislators to do it for us! I’ll sleep better tonight. 
The consititution doesn’t protect the “rights” of a political party, it protects the rights of individuals. You, as an individual, can “discuss” any issue you want, right up to election day. The news media can “discuss” (more often, manufacture) any issues that they want right up to election day. All this law does is attempt (rather ineffectively, IMHO) to prevent special interests from circumventing existing campaign financing laws using “soft money.”
The real reason you see “bipartisan” dislike for the law is because it moves a very real block of power from the grasp of corrupt political parties to the grasp of often misguided, but mostly honest, political action groups. It has always been the case that any person or group with enough money could have a very strong impact on elections but in the past the most efficient and cost effective way to do that was to work with the established political parties. Now that avenue is closed and both established political parties are having a cow over it. For the average American the law doesn’t mean much – we’ll still have the best government money can buy.
but why not try this:
- stop screwing with the constitution–allow free political speech.
- make that speech public–require full and timely disclosure of contributions, like on the internet.
- don’t coerce contributions–let union employees withhold dues that go to political campaigns.
- consider forms of corporate accountability for political contributions.
“but why no try this: --allow free political speech”
..because anyone can still say anything they want during campaigns. The only thing that’s changed is that free speech is now governed in a particular narrow aspect, mostly in regards to the $$$$$$$$ it takes to say potentially outrageous things, said or printed, during a critical time span through the media. Accountability is expected in politics, apart from from things required by the PDC (Public Disclosure Commission) which monitors all PAC anyway.
Continue enjoying your constitutional rights. Examine all other requirements of advertising within the PDC rules. This isn’t the only damper that’s put on politicians.