"This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography... tobacco advertising... dissemination of illegally intercepted communications... and sexually explicit cable programming... would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government. For that is what the most offensive provisions of this legislation are all about. We are governed by Congress, and this legislation prohibits the criticism of Members of Congress by those entities most capable of giving such criticism loud voice: national political parties and corporations, both of the commercial and the not-for-profit sort. It forbids pre-election criticism of incumbents by corporations, even not-for-profit corporations, by use of their general funds; and forbids national party use of soft money to fund issue ads that incumbents find so offensive."
-Justice Scalia
---------------
"The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.. Nevertheless, the Court today upholds what can only be described as the most significant abridgment of the freedoms of speech and association since the Civil War. With breathtaking scope, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), directly targets and constricts core political speech, the primary object of First Amendment protection."
"Because the First Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political office... our duty is to approach these restrictions with the utmost skepticism and subject them to the strictest scrutiny."
"In response to this assault on the free exchange of ideas and with only the slightest consideration of the appropriate standard of review or of the Court's traditional role of protecting First Amendment freedoms, the Court has placed its imprimatur on these unprecedented restrictions. The very purpose of the First Amendment [is] to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail..."
-Justice Thomas
---------------
"The First Amendment guarantees our citizens the right to judge for themselves the most effective means for the expression of political views and to decide for themselves which entities to trust as reliable speakers. Significant portions of Titles I and II of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA or Act) constrain that freedom."
"These new laws force speakers to abandon their own preference for speaking through parties and organizations. And they provide safe harbor to the mainstream press, suggesting that the corporate media alone suffice to alleviate the burdens the Act places on the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens."
-Justice Kennedy
----------------
"... (P)olitical parties often foster speech crucial to a healthy democracy... and fulfill the need for like-minded individuals to ban together and promote a political philosophy.... When political parties engage in pure political speech that has little or no potential to corrupt their federal candidates and officeholders, the government cannot constitutionally burden their speech any more than it could burden the speech of individuals engaging in these same activities."
"[The Court] should not be able to broadly restrict political speech in the fashion it has chosen. Today's decision, by not requiring tailored restrictions, has significantly reduced the protection for political speech having little or nothing to do with corruption or the appearance of corruption."
-Chief Justice Rehnquist
Has he cleaned up his language? If he's like Rush of 10 years ago I might listen to him more. I was listening to him one day a few months ago and found myself so embarrassed with some crude language that I had to turn off the radio. Is he an "Excellent role model for the yutes of America" again?