[Revel]

Blast from the past:


""Paradoxically, Souter's message may be bad news for McCain's campaign-finance-regulation bill. ... David Souter today
removed all doubts about his devotion to the cause of campaign-finance "reform." He seems willing to accept almost any
restriction on political speech aimed at preventing "corruption. The Supreme Court's abdication of constitutional
responsibility, however, may doom the current effort to restrict campaign contributions. If so, Justice Souter will have
accidentally defended the core values of the Constitution."

The problem with this analysis is that it presumes that the campaign finance "reform" movement would die were a stake to be
driven through the heart of McCain-Feingold.

But there is a shadow lurking even while the legislation's assassins work feverishly. And that shadow is the Supreme Court itself,
which has now fully laid the groundwork to overrule the essence of Buckley v. Valeo, upon which our entire effort to stop this
madness is based. And when that happens, the first amendment will also be a mere shadow.

Buckley v. Valeo, of course, affirmed the core principle that money = speech and did so after a somewhat highminded and
intellectual analysis proved the equation. The decision written by Justice Souter, for the majority, in Federal Election Commission
v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, on the other hand, dismisses this "idealistic" analysis and refers instead
to the "realistic influence of money in politics." Put differently, if money = speech, too much money = not speech.

If this Court holds to its intolerant view of citizens exercising constitutional rights that fall within merely "idealistic" ranges, then we
are doomed."

7 Posted on 07/05/2001 09:09:49 PDT by Clarity
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]

[supercat]

Put differently, if money = speech, too much money = not speech.

Giving a candidate money may arguably not be speech. But it should be obvious to any reasonable person that publishing ones opinion of a candidate--even if one has to pay to have such opinion published--clearly is speech, and of precisely the sort the First Amendment is supposed to protect.