Well the Kangaroos in the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS)
have in effect burned the Constitution. Your rights have been infringed, and these traitors, these lawyers in robes, have eroded your freedoms. These freedoms are in the Constitution to limit government from stopping you from living your life.
In case you don't follow the news, SCOTUS has upheld the McCain-Feilgold campaign finance, particularly the part which limits political action ads before federal elections. This will limit groups such as the ACLU, NRA, Planned Parenthood, and many others from running ads which point out positives or negatives of federal candidates.
The First Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The element of the campaign law which limits ads is infringing on the free exercise of speech and of redress of grievances against our government. As private citizens who mostly likely cannot afford to spend thousands supporting a candiate, joining groups like the AARP and the NRA are a way for us to get our voices heard.
What is even more troubling is that media organizations, liberal or conservative, can still use their mightly power as they will. That means media outlets like The New York Times, Washington Post can continue to push a more left of center agenda while outlets like the Washington Times and New York Post can push a more right of center agenda. The power of free speech has left the people and is centered with the huge media centers.
The justices who voted to uphold McCain-Feingold should be regarded as traitors against our constitution. The very Constitution they swore to uphold.
The Justices who voted to trample the Constituion are Sandra Day O'Conner, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Bryer, and David Souter.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Anthony Kennedy, and Antonin Scalia voted against the law and to preserve the constitution.
You should be pissed off about this. This is a destruction of your rights. It doesn't help that President Bush folded to political pressure and signed the bill. Traitors like the five ambulance chasers who voted for this and Senators McCain and Feinbold who introduced it should be held as American traitors in the eyes of history.
That is if we will ever be free to discuss it again.
History will have to decide.
Article comments
1 - Hal Pawluk
My take on this is that it's not a free speech issue at all, but self-regulation by the governing body.
And gods knows it needs regulation when it comes to political advertising.
Political TV ads are essentially "quickie lies." They take a piece of a part of a bit of an opponent's position and use it to mischaracterize the opponent. They'll twist the spin on a ballot initiative (here in California) and make it sound like a "Yes" vote means the opposite. And sometimes they just lie, or to use the political term, "misspeak."
The public interest would be better served and the electorate would be better informed if, for instance, broadcast ads were simply banned. In that case, politicians would still be allowed their "free speech," but they would do have to do it in print and might be a bit more honest. They'd have more time to make a better case for their positions (a :30 just goes whizzing by) and the words would be there plain as day, so maybe we'd get more accountability.
That's not likely to happen, but maybe we could get a review board, similar to the National Advertising Review Board, to set some standards and have "Truth In Advertising" apply to politicians, too.
What do you think?
2 - Tom
You know what I think. All speech should be protected. Why should the powerful editorial boards of big city newspapers be able to get their point across, but I can't get my point head on behalf of the NRA or other interest group?
3 - Hal Pawluk
Because of Bush.
He's given Big Media a free hand, and individuals are S.O.L.
4 - Al Barger
Hal, this suggestion in #1 is incredibly authoritarian and un-American. I'm looking for some hint that you mean it satirically, but I see no sign of such.
Sometimes, people use their free speech to make good, honest arguments. Sometimes they use it to spin and deceive.
Who decides which is what in all this? Some government board decides which statements about the politicians they work for are valid? Duh.
You know what we could try instead? Everybody gets to say pretty much anything they want any way they want about candidates running for public office, and then the candidates could say anything back. It would be like some kind of right to freedom of expression as the basis for a public dialogue. Then the voters can figure out how much of who's stories they believe for themselves.
That sounds like a really good idea to me. Perhaps we should put something to that effect in the constitution...
5 - Hal Pawluk
Not at all, Al: it's called "civilization" and the give and take of society.
Regulation is not in and of itself unconstitutional, and not everyone can have everything their own way all the time.
In this case, it's not even a free speech issue, as anyone can continue to say anything they want, within limits like not shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Even the constitution does not provide for unbridled and reckless speech.
What you may be raising is an issue of class warfare, "the rich against the poor," but I don't see that as having much basis in the constitution.