Is The Bell Tolling For McCain-Feingold And Its Predecessors?
We've twice mentioned the legal wrangling surrounding the low-brow hit piece "Hillary: The Movie" (and its somewhat less popular sequel, "Hillary Takes Manhattan"). Today SCOTUS took the very unusual step of holding oral argument on the case before its normal term began. The Liberty Papers has a roundup of descriptions of and reactions to the argument, as well as a link to a recording of the argument.
It certainly sounds as if current limits on political advertising are headed for some sort of beating; it remains to be seen how bad the beating will be.
There are, of course, excellent policy arguments for the proposition that unrestrained speech about political campaigns has negative consequences for our Republic. Similarly, there are excellent arguments for the proposition that all sorts of speech is harmful: racial invective, ridicule, flag burning, pornography, reality shows, etc. Those policy arguments have not prevailed in the face of the First Amendment when it comes to flag burning, porn, and generally being an asshole. Perhaps SCOTUS is finally set to deliver a coherent, principled, and broad ruling that policy does not trump the First Amendment when it comes to political spending, either.
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- Dinesh D'Souza's Sentence Isn't Remarkable - September 23rd, 2014
- Texas Court Makes Upskirts Mandatory, Outlaws Kittens, Hates Your Mother - September 21st, 2014
- American Spectator Surrenders To Vexatious Litigant and Domestic Terrorist Brett Kimberlin - September 20th, 2014
- A Grumble: United States Courts Website Misinforms About Free Speech - September 18th, 2014
- Follow-Up: U.C. Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks Gets Free Speech Right This Time - September 12th, 2014