Hasen predicts a near nuclear disaster for the goo-goo campaign finance lobby: SCOTUS will nix the whole decades-long attempt to keep corporate and union money out of campaign ads--in effect declaring that it's OK if for-profit corporations and unions use their unlimited funds to run spots attacking specific candidates.
I can't quite figure out how Mr. Kaus thinks that the Supreme Court would be "undoing the right thing" when they finally get around to protecting the First Amendment. Any limitations, regulations, or restrictions on political contributions is unconstitutional. Period. End of discussion. The lawyers can debate this ad infinitum, but the First Amendment says what it says, and we don't need lawyers to explain to us what it means.
The only asterisk in the First Amendment is false/slanderous/treasonous speech. There is no asterisk for the following:
- It doesn't say that only individuals can petition their government.
- It doesn't say that groups, profitable or otherwise, should be restrained from exercising their right to speak, with the funds to make their voices louder.
- It doesn't say that individuals or groups have to declare themselves. Anonymity is a right we all maintain.
If it is difficult to track who is giving money to whom, too bad. If it makes it more difficult for some people to win against the large contributions from corporations, tough. If there are "deep pockets" that will sway elections, so be it.
Rights and the protection of our Constitution do get inconvenient and troublesome at times.
If these things were easy, if they weren't sometimes inconvenient, there would have been no reason for the Founding Fathers to write it down.
H/t Instapundit.
Posts
