The New York Times is Liberal. Do I have to point this out? In today's Editorial they, of course, came out strongly in favor of the stripping away of our Constitutional rights.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, widely known as McCain-Feingold, closed two gaping loopholes in campaign finance law. One was "soft money," the unlimited, and often very sizable, contributions to political parties that were then funneled into federal campaigns. The other concerned sham "issue ads," commercials run just before an election that were unregulated because they purported to be about political issues but were actually intended to help particular candidates.
I like how they say sham issue ads. I guess when grassroots groups such as the NRA or ACLU run ads is a sham, but when a obviously liberal paper like the New York times runs slanted editorials or the LA Times sits on stories until it will most hurt a candidate they oppose that is legitimate free press.
They even go on to call for more reforms:
More, and more creative, approaches are needed. Now that many of the constitutional objections have been stripped away, Congress has a greater obligation than ever to address what the court's majority aptly called "the ill effects of aggregated wealth on our political system."
I would only have to assume that they are so much for these reforms because the large liberal press is now further empowered to attempt to use their might to mold American politics in a shape which they deem as correct.
American newspaper editorial pages were empowered yesterday, while the rights of everday citizens' voices to be heard by joining interest groups was diminished.
Article comments
1 - Doc
Quite your loony griping. It's obviously not unconsitutional with the Supreme Court ruling.
You can't be on the wrong side when you disagree with Scalia. :)
I'm sorry, is the Washington Times or NY Post unbiased? At least the NY Time makes profit. The WT and NYP are subsidised by the Moonies and Murdoch respectively to push the right wing loony point of view rather than the almighty 'free market' approach of depending on attracting enough buyers for their papers. The Times is hardly wildly liberal.
2 - Tom Bux
You are the same type who believe that there is a "Separation of Church and State", but when something is plainly written in the Constitution you don't see it.
I don't appreciate someone calling the conservative point of view loony. If you would ever come down from your ivory tower to see how real blue collar working Americans think about freedom, responsibility, and morality you will see you are wrong in your assertion.
Get a clue.
3 - Chris
Who cares who own the newspapers, the basic fact remains: (setting aside the issue of the soft money ban, which is in keeping with prior precedent) yesterday the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, struck at the core of the First Amendment, political speech.
4 - Hal Pawluk
It's not a free speech issue, it's an issue of self-regulation by Congress, and the SOTUS says that's okay.
I agree.
I know that the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard and the other extreme right publications will disagree, but as Bush said: "That's just the way it goes."
(Here's context for the quote: "I do know I'm ready for the job. And, if not, that's just the way it goes."â€"Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 21, 2000)
5 - Tom
It isn't a self-regulation issue. How can you say you uphold the constitution when you say we just just 'ban those ads' or regulate them.
Free speech means having the right to tell lies too. All speech is covered, not just speech we agree with.
And as far as the SCOTUS goes, I now see the same people protesting that court for 'appointing Bush' but saying they are good in this decision.
6 - Hal Pawluk
Free speech is not reckless speech nor limitless speech. You can say anything you want, but you can't come into my house and do so. You can't shout 'fire' in a theater. You can't do false advertising. You can't lie to stockholders. Financial scams are illegal.
Lying can be and is regulated.