Posted in another thread:
I think Cal Thomas (
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20031211.shtml) has a good op on Townhall.com about this and brought up the same point that I tried to make in yesterday's long thread about the SC decision.
"Political action committees can still function under the ruling, but PACs must provide lists of contributors to anyone interested. Nat Hentoff(an authority on the First Amendment) reminds me of the 1958 NAACP vs. Alabama case in which the state sued the civil rights organization to stop it from conducting activities in Alabama on grounds that it had failed to comply with the requirement that "foreign corporations" register before doing business in the state. During the proceedings, Alabama requested the NAACP produce a large number of its records. The organization did so but held back its membership lists. The Alabama court found the NAACP in contempt and imposed a large fine.
"In its opinion overturning the state court ruling, Supreme Court Justice John Harlan wrote, "Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly. ." Justice Harlan then said something that could serve as a stern rebuke to the five members of the current Court who have effectively diminished the freedom of political speech: "In the domain of these indispensable liberties, whether of speech, press or association, the decisions of this Court recognize the ABRIDGEMENT of such rights, even though unintended, may inevitably follow from varied forms of governmental action. ."
I tried to tell those who who didn't think it was such a big deal or those who thought the constitution gave Congress the right to "regulate" elections that this was an "abridgement" to freedom of speech. Many talked about the "corruption" in politics or the money involved and that seemed to be the main concern. But is money the same thing as a gun being held to a politicians head? I believe not.
Political candidates make moral choices, or, at the very least, I wish they would. But the blame seems to be squarely on money and not on the candidate and his character. Sort of like blaming the gun for killing someone rather than the perpetrator of the crime.
But the MAIN concern here is "special interest groups and others" being banned from running political ads during the final two months of an election. An individual who goes to a TV or radio station to pay for an ad critical of a candidate could come under investigation. He could be asked what group he belongs to and where he got the money from to pay for the ad.
I would suggest to those who believe that they have no problem with this ruling to carefully look at the constitution, the First Amendment, and then look up the dictionary meaning of "abridge", and then tell us all why you believe that this ruling was in fact the right one.