A friend whose opinion I value and respect told me that he was “appalled” by the Supreme Court decision that struck down the heart of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The widely publicized issue here is whether or not corporations can finance political advertisements during certain periods of the election cycle. What I find appalling is that the vote of the court was 5–4. This should have been a 9-0 vote to overturn a blatantly unconstitutional law that violates first amendment rights in a way that is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts during the John Adams administration. [OK, I exaggerate greatly when I make that comparison, but I couldn’t help myself!]
Many public servants dropped the ball on this one
When the members of congress were voting on this bill originally, they had an obligation to recognize its unconstitutionality and vote against it. Then, President Bush had an obligation to veto the bill when it came to him for a signature. After that, in 2003, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to this law in McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission. They had an obligation to declare the law unconstitutional at that time. But, by a 5-4 vote, they failed to live up to that obligation.
Government officials deciding which books and movies can be shown
As a result, we got the case of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. Here is a case where an organization named Citizens United produced a movie that was very much an anti Hillary Clinton piece. The FEC prohibited them from making Hillary: The Movie available for video on demand distribution. To be fair, they were, in fact, following the McCain-Feingold law. The Supreme Court as it was configured in 2009 found it appalling that federal government bureaucrats had the power to decide whether or not a particular movie or a book could be allowed. As I said before, what I find appalling is that any of the justices on the court would find that acceptable. Those justices would be John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. The justices who find it unacceptable to have the government dictating which films and books can be allowed for publication are John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.
The Tonight Show and 60 Minutes become the most powerful sources of information
Under the McCain-Feingold law, corporations were prohibited from “electioneering communications” 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days prior to a general election. This means that during that time period, the most powerful voices in the media belong to professional entertainers and major news organizations. This, of course, gives a huge advantage to any Democrat candidate since both of those groups have a heavy left wing influence.
TV and movie stars don’t have to pay anything to appear on television in the form of gossip shows and late night interview programs. There, they have free rein to advocate for any public policy position or any candidate for office that they support – and they absolutely should have that right! If you are Rosie O’Donnell, you can get on TV and rant all you want about how your second amendment rights should be violated as a matter of public policy. If you are the NRA, you are prohibited by law. Even if you agree with Rosie and hate the NRA, the free speech issue here should still strike you.
One sided reporting with no way to rebut?
Of course, most of the major news organizations (with the exception of Fox News) are simply a satellite campaign office for the Democrat candidates in any race. Just to give one example from recent memory, during the 2004 presidential campaign, 60 Minutes would give a segment (sometimes two) to any author who wrote a book trashing President George W. Bush. Hell, Dan Rather even lost his job because, in his fervent hatred of President Bush, he allowed faked documents to go on the air in an attempt to sway the election toward John Kerry. However, when General Tommy Franks published a book that had favorable things to say about the president, he was nowhere to be found on that news magazine.
Bad decisions should not be allowed to stand
Liberals are beside themselves because this Supreme Court decision overturns the earlier McConnell vs. FEC decision as well as a 1985 decision in Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. In that case, the court ruled that the Chamber of Commerce could not endorse a candidate for a seat in the state House of Representatives. They hold the principle of stare decisis sacrosanct (when it comes to rulings that they revere and know won’t hold up under real constitutional scrutiny). Stare decisis is the legal principle that holds that courts are to be bound by precedent rulings. However, if a previous court ruled incorrectly on a constitutional matter, it would be negligence of duty to stick to such a ruling when an opportunity presents itself to rule properly. I don’t think very many people would insist that the court committed an egregious violation in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education case because stare decisis bound them to honor the 1896 ruling in Plessy vs. Ferguson (when the ruling was that blacks and whites could have “separate but equal” accommodations).
Free speech with full disclosure
How do we solve this problem? Is there too much corporate money in elections? Perhaps. But do we want to grant a virtual monopoly on public discourse to celebrities and the news media? What a nightmare! I say that anyone should be able to donate as much money as they like to any candidate. However, there should be full public disclosure so that everyone knows who is backing whom. Then, the voters can decide for themselves.
Post A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Webmaster Says: June 10th, 2010at 1:16 pm
Hello! Please e-mail me your contacts. I have a question webmaster@bravto.ru” rel=”nofollow”>……
Thank you!!!…