Posted on 11/27/2005 1:20:40 AM PST by Jim Robinson
In California, 'progressive' thinking has progressed to the idea that because money in politics is bad, political competition is, too.
Dec. 5, 2005 issue - Attacks on freedom of political speech are becoming more brazen. Because the attackers aim to enlarge government's control of the political campaigns that decide who controls government, the attacks advance liberalism's program of extending government supervision of life.
Some liberal senators have filed a brief urging the Supreme Court, in a case concerning Vermont's speech restrictions, to affirm that people like the seven senators"elected representatives and seasoned participants in the electoral process," meaning professional politicians"are entitled to broad deference in the regulation of federal elections." Entitled, that is, to regulate the quantity, the timing and even the content of speech about themselves. Indeed, in its 5-4 decision upholding the McCain-Feingold law's expansion of government regulation of political communications, the Supreme Court held that political incumbents are entitled to judicial deference when they write rules that control challenges to their incumbency.
Under Vermont's limits, a candidate for state representative in a single-member district can spend no more than $2,000 in a two-year cycle. Every mile driven by a candidateor a volunteermust be computed as a 48.5-cent campaign expenditure. Just drivingand not much of itcan exhaust permissible spending.
In 1976, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of federal limits on large contributions because such limits serve the compelling purpose of preventing corruptionwhich is already illegalor the "appearance" of it. But the court struck down spending limits because they involve no similar "appearance." Obviously such laws limit the quantity of political communication and favor the well-known incumbents who enact them: they limit the ability of challengers to make themselves known.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
"Why is every leftist/"liberal" anti-capitalist socialist I've known for the past 50 years is a wealthy capitalist??? Paradox! "
A lot like that modern paradox, Communist China with a capitalist economic engine.
It's control they want.
This is one case where it can be legitimately claimed "It's not about the money."
Instead, it is as you surmise, all about "control". Given power, the liberals would move quickly to re-cast the Constitution as empowering the state and limiting personal liberty.
The left is "weak on national security" but they are stronger than horseradish when it comes to fascism.
....
Attacks on freedom of political speech are becoming more brazen. Because the attackers aim to enlarge government's control of the political campaigns that decide who controls government, the attacks advance liberalism's program of extending government supervision of life.
....
Usually, I like George Will. But, he is the same guy who just a couple of weeks ago railed against Intelligent Design and approves of government control when it comes to ID in the classroom. So, when "free speech" is under attack, I guess it depends on whose ox is getting gored.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.