George F. Will: Restoring free political speech

Sacramento Bee ^ | 6/28/7 | George F. Will

[SmithL]

Let us hope that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who is rarely right about First Amendment matters, was right about what he said in April. During oral arguments about a challenge to a use of the McCain-Feingold law to suppress political speech, Breyer, who considers the suppression constitutional, said to the challenger: "If we agree with you in this case, goodbye McCain-Feingold."

The challenger was a small group of Wisconsin citizens who, by their grass-roots lobbying for their political views, tried to commit the offense -- the crime, actually -- of influencing their U.S. senators during what the Federal Election Commission, which acts as the speech police under McCain-Feingold, insisted was that law's blackout period, during which the First Amendment is supposedly repealed.

In 2004, Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) was unhappy because Wisconsin Sens. Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl were participating with other Democrats in filibusters to block Senate consideration of some of President Bush's judicial nominees. WRTL wanted to broadcast ads urging the senators' constituents to "contact Senators Feingold and Kohl and tell them to oppose the filibuster."

This is speech by people seeking a redress of grievances. The italicized words are from the First Amendment's enumeration of rights that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging. ..." Yet four Supreme Court justices -- Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens -- supported the FEC's judgment that McCain-Feingold required banning WRTL's ad.

The "problem," in the FEC's judgment, with WRTL's exhortation to Wisconsin residents was that Feingold was running for re-election in 2004. Because WRTL is incorporated, it fell under McCain-Feingold's ban on any "electioneering communication" -- a radio or TV ad that "refers to" a candidate for federal office -- within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

[SmithL]

"If we agree with you in this case, goodbye McCain-Feingold."

We can hope so. And if so, thank you President Bush for this Supreme Court

---

Elections have consequences!

[Logophile]

We can hope so. And if so, thank you President Bush for this Supreme Court.

I agree with you about the president's supreme court apointments. But wouldn't it have been better if he had simply vetoed McCain-Feingold?

[calex59]

I agree with you about the president's supreme court apointments. But wouldn't it have been better if he had simply vetoed McCain-Feingold?

Hey, don't try to talk sense, Bushbots can't handle it. I will go further than you and say that our treasonous legislatures, who held the majority at the time, should have not passed this unconstitutional amendment to begin with, Bush should have vetoed it and, failing those two actions, the SCOTUS should have declared it unconstitutional. A failing all the way around of our sleazy politicians, Bush included.

Also, many people forget that Bush wanted his crony Harriet in the second seat and only the bases rebellion kept it from happening.

[SmithL]

But wouldn't it have been better if he had simply vetoed McCain-Feingold?

Yes

[nickcarraway]

Breyer’s version of the Constitution: Pornography is free speech, but political speeach isn’t.

[nickcarraway]

Elections have consequences!

In 2000, McCain and Gore campaigned for CFR, and George Bush against it. George Bush was elected. We got CFR. Yes, elections have consequences. I was so eager to vote that day in 2000. But maybe I just wasted 20 minutes of my life.