[okie01]

Obviously depends on the degree of corruption in question. If small - then he's wrong, if egregious - then right.

Always WRONG!

Because, even if the corruption is egregious, freedom of speech allows the electorate to a.) become aware of the problem and b.) do something about it.

Free speech vs "clean government" is a false choice. It is possible to have both. Indeed, it is more likely with free speech than without.

McCain is an opportunistic ass.

[GSlob]

"Always WRONG! Because, even if the corruption is egregious, freedom of speech allows the electorate to a.) become aware of the problem and b.) do something about it. "
Not quite: on paper the USSR of thucking memory had the freedom of speech. What it was in reality, and the epic degree of corruption there, is a completely different story. OTOH, history knows of a few [very few] kings who - while obviously not allowing freedom of speech - were given sobriquets "the good", precisely because their governments were significantly cleaner than the contemporary norm. Thus, it is indeed a matter of degree, and therefore not "always wrong".