Sort of, but not really.
The very first thing the drafters of the Bill of Rights set forth was that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. Obviously, political speech was foremost in their minds. Just as obviously, supporting or opposing political candidates is political speech in its purest form.
Yet, in passing CFR, Congress made a law which restricts pure political speech in a very substantial fashion. The President signed the law and the Supreme Court upheld most of it. In effect, the First Amendment was amended so as to place the media and billionaires on a different plane from ordinary citizens who wish to join with like-minded individuals for the purpose of advocating particular political positions. Somehow, the right to free speech is now different 61 days before an election than it is 59 days before an election. Personally, I can't reconcile that condition to the First Amendment, but I must not be as smart as political incumbents or Supreme Court Justices.
Since what I wrote earlier is almost literally true, it really can't be classified as sarcasm.
Correction, the dimwitted Sandra Day O'Connor and the liberals on the court upheld the clearly unconstitutional Incumbent Protection Act, which, hopefully, a more constitutionally-minded court will soon overturn.
The Congress passing a law; the President signing that law; and, the Supremes declaring it “constitutional” does NOT make it constitutional. I understand that some time ago the Supremes, in a typical self-serving way, declared that they, and they alone, pass on the constitutionality of legislation — but, that doesn’t make it so.
This legislation is clearly unconstitutional and the Supreme could argue otherwise until the end of time, but that won’t change the simple fact of the matter.
Yeah, but you need to distinguish between the First Amendment as originally written and intended, and that as bastardized by the politicians (and I include the damned Supreme Court judges in that category).