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
- Ares Rights, Bless Its Heart, Continues Bumbling Attempts At Censorship - September 2nd, 2014
- Patrick McLaw, Skepticism, And Law Enfocement's Obliging Stenographers - September 2nd, 2014
- Attorney Mike Meier Meets The Streisand Effect, Does Not Enjoy Experience - August 27th, 2014
- Adventures in Sleazy Marketing: Purzue Just Wants A Conversation - August 27th, 2014
- Government Priorities: Compare And Contrast - August 25th, 2014