Being someone who hold the first amendment dear to my cold, black, unfeeling heart I'm torn about the latest Supreme Court ruling considering campaign finance reform. Under the McCain/Feingold sponsored Act corporations, unions, and various other interest groups were not allowed to run advertisements endorsing or slamming a candidate within a month of the date voters hit the polls.The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that limiting such advertising by special interest groups is a violation of the first amendment. What is strange that I agree and disagree with them. Knee jerk reaction is that most of the public would like to see less special interest groups wielding their huge bank accounts and hiring PR and advertising agencies to help determine the outcome of the election; however they are within every right to do so. Should they not be able to speak their minds as any average citizen even though legally corporations are defined as a person? Should a group of people not be able to be a part of the public discourse limiting freedom of speech only to an individual? Could I have condensed this post into something almost readable?
"Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor." - Chief Justice John Roberts
Justices loosens limits on campaign ads
1 comment:
I am surprised that the court cited the defending of our freedom of speech as their reasoning behind this legislation when this week they also refused to acknowledge that same freedom ("Bong hits for Jesus")when it wasn't convenient. Hmm.
Post a Comment