  urlLink CNN.com - Supreme Court upholds 'soft money' ban - Dec. 10, 2003 So you think that SCOTUS is not an important body? With one stroke, the Supremes waved the First Ammendment away like it was nothing more than a misunderstanding lo these 200+ years. What a travesty. The law bans ads that mention a candidate or issue 60 days before a general election. Ponder that for a moment: it is now illegal to engage in speech within a proscribed window of time. Speech has been criminalized by federal statute. If the amount of money in politics is disturbing to so many, the only reasonable way to eliminate it is to remove the amount of politics in money, or as George Will says, 'the importance of government in allocating wealth and opportunity'. Money flows into politics because of the profound effect a politician can have on our well being, or the ability of a company to conduct business unfettered. Witness the hit put out on Microsoft when Gates refused to pony up donations to either party. A limited government would cure the importance of issue advocacy, and the instinct to appease politicians who can destroy your life on a whim. So SCOTUS has decided that contributions cannot be made to organziations who seek to express opinions on policy. In a strange fantasy, they seek to decouple the legislation of policy from election outcomes. Where else in the world has the government determined that we cannot discuss candidates or policy with each other before we go to the polls to make decisions on candidates and policy?
Does that strike anyone else as odd, if not chilling? In the 1999-2000 cycle, $3 billion dollars was spent on all Federal Elections by the candidates. For that money, we chose 435 members of the House and 34 Senators, not to mention a President. In that same span of two years, the American people spent $6 billion on chewing gum. Money is like water. If it is dammed up, it will find new paths. All the campaign laws will accomplish is the invention of new, creative ways to finance speech, and in many instances, we will loose the transperency of the current system.
Donation disclosure was working just fine, as anyone could determine who gave how much to whom. That is why we have newspapers - to keep track of these things and point them out. Now, with this abomination in place, the do-gooders who insists that money corrupts have lost the ability to monitor the new channels of cash that will spring up, seeping around the McCain-Feingold dam and eroding new channels in propriety.
That is the NY Times dream. Being a newspaper, they are exempt from the restriction of commenting on elections. They love restricting others access to the public, while they will be happy to preach to the same public about why the Workers Party is the way to go. The ultimate dream is public financing. The Left would love to create a situation where all candidates must only accept money from the government, subject to government determination as to what can be said, and when.
As for those that wish to speak out on an issue; our lot is to eat cake and shut up. We will accept what we are told to accept, and we will be prevented from discussing it under penalty of prison. First Amendment? You misunderstand it's meaning. Instead of the elegant and simple "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech", we now have: "Congress ... may adopt reasonable regulations of funds expended, including contributions, to influence the outcome of elections, provided that such regulations do not impair the right of the public to a full and free discussion of all issues and do not prevent any candidate for elected office from amassing the resources necessary for effective advocacy. " You want to try to figure out the definitions of 'reasonable', 'full and free discussion' and 'necessary'?
They can mean whatever those in power wish them to mean, and those definitions will be as fluid as 'necessary' to assure the definers own survival. The decision on SCOTUS was 5-4, with Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy in dissent. The usual cast of Leftists freaks made up the majority (Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer) along with the worst mistake ever made by Reagan - O'Connor. May they all rot. Scalia, as always, says it best - "The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech.
" 
