A sampling of some initial reactions to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold The Incumbent Protection Act McCain-Feingold.
It's official. The Supreme Court has upheld the limitations on free speech enshrined in the 'Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.' It is now illegal for people to speak out on elections except through government-approved venues. For me, this seems to violate that rule about government making no laws abridging freedom of speech, but it has been clear for some time now that the Constitution is no longer a binding document as far as this court is concerned.
And:
As an aside, how long before someone goes after a blog as illegal campaign speech less than 60 days before an election?
It seems the US Supreme Court failed to remember key pieces of the US Constitution in making the decision regarding so-called campaign finance reform. But there is an argument outside the pesky Constitutional argument:
The money issue is less annoying, in some respects, than the limit on advertising. What is wrong with a little competition between candidates and between ideas? Oh, there is the problem, it is competition. One more attempt to limit the presence of that nasty feature of capitalism. Just like a business in the free-market, political campaigns should be allowed freedom to compete. This would be like telling Sony that in competing with Microsoft they were not allowed to advertise their products.
Real Campaign reform.org, in an e-mail:
The Supreme Court ruling came down today. This is the
moment we've been waiting for. At first glance, the
decision is very bad for our country -
to our liberty.
Far from protecting political freedom, a slim majority of the Court has now expanded the power of Congress to regulate and to harass individuals and groups who criticize incumbents. The question remains whether the Court in the future will enforce any constitutional protections for the funding of political activity challenging the Congressional status quo.
More to come.
Posted by Walter at December 10, 2003 05:28 PM