Justices for Free Speech

Wall Street Journal ^ | 28 June 2008 | Editorial Staff

[shrinkermd]

It has been a splendid week for the Bill of Rights at the Supreme Court. In addition to their landmark gun rights ruling, the same five Justices took another whack at Congress's attempts to limit political speech via campaign-finance limits. John McCain, call your office.

In Davis v. FEC, a 5-4 majority overturned a portion of the 2002 McCain-Feingold law that exempted the political opponents of rich candidates from the usual fund-raising limits in order to "level the playing field." Known as the Millionaire's Amendment, the law saddled wealthy, self-financing candidates with burdens designed to help their opponents. Millionaires had to report expenditures within 24 hours, while their opponents were allowed greater coordination with political parties and could raise three times the usual $2,300 limit on individual contributions. Naturally, this idea came from Congressional incumbents who hate wealthy challengers.

The case was brought by Jack Davis, a New York Democrat who twice ran a self-financed campaign to oust Congressman Tom Reynolds. Mr. Davis's spending triggered the millionaire limits, despite Mr. Reynolds's well-stocked campaign bank accounts. Though he lost both times, Mr. Davis was fined by the Federal Election Commission for failing to report expenditures in the 24-hour window.

[shrinkermd]

The political brain is an emotional brain. On one hand, I cannot see how people are eager to permit more money into politics.

On the other hand, I see a fierce egalitarian urge in many reform movements, including campaign finance reform, which is not congruent with actual, measured human abilities. Socialism seeks, on many levels, to make us all more equal while guaranteeding the government's right to be more equal than the equals.

[Mrs.Z]

$$$ = politics

The only restraints on money in politics should be full disclosure.

Otherwise, Soros or someone like him will control our politics. (Oops, already happened).

[Oldpuppymax]

If anyone wonders why the founders were so forthcoming with their concerns about unscrupulous politicians and a criminal government, just look at Wash. DC. They created one hell of a system. The question is, are we willing to keep it alive, or will our own sloth be responsible for its demise.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

If you do not assume that journalism is objective, you instantly realize that the broadcasting/printing of journalism is a tremendous political expenditure. And the fact that people pay money for the newspaper does not make the money used to print the newspaper somehow "clean" compared to the money donated to politicians or political parties.

In fact, if people buy papers assuming they are objective and they are not, then the money printers get from the public for their product is actually dirty money.

But are journalists objective? No, journalism is simply the promotion of anti conservatism. Journalists promote today's news as important, and denigrate yesterday's news as - well, as "yesterday's news." But they did the same thing yesterday, and the day before that. Which would imply that we are in a perpetually accelerating crisis. And the idea that we are in a persistent crisis is radicalism.