[Labyrinthos]

The SCOTUS decision is truly stunning. The decision goes much further than simply negating portions of McLame-Feingold, in that the Court overruled Austin, a twenty year old precedent that upheld restrictions on corporate campaign advertising. If I have read today's decision correctly (Kennedy tends to get verbose and there are a number of concurrences), the Court not only struck down the prohibition of PAC advocacy ads within 30/60 days of a primary/general election, but the prohibition against corporate campaign advocacy, in general, as well the prohibition against deceptive and misleading campaign ads.

The SCOTUS basically said that corporations have the same rights as individuals and that a corporation should not have to incur the burden and expense of setting up and operating a PAC that it is not even allowed to directly fund, as a prerequisite to engaging in political speech. Most importantly, the Court emphasized that the best way to fight deceptive or misleading campaign ads in not with laws and regulations that use criminal penalties to limit speech, but with more speech and less government regulation. The Court basically B-Slapped the FEC in proclaiming that the First Amendment is incompatible with a regulatory scheme that requires a corporation to get the blessing of government bureaucrats as a prerequisite to engaging in protected political speech.

The only part of the law under review that the Court upheld is the requirment that corporate ads on TV/Radio disclose the source of the ad and state whether it has the approval of a particular candidate. (Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion that would have struck this provision also.)

Again, this is a truly amazing decision that upholds the most basic premise of the First Amendment.

[rwfromkansas]

According to CNN, this was a narrow ruling and much of McCain remains.

So, which is it?

[livius]

I agree, it is a truly amazing decision. I think it will have an impact in other areas, too.

[Deo volente]

Quote of the Day:

“When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority.