[FreeReign]

Sotomayor Expected to Favor Campaign Finance Restrictions

From the article: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, once a lawyer on New York City’s Campaign Finance Board who implemented campaign finance restrictions, isn’t likely to vote in favor of reversing those longstanding federal restrictions on corporate spending. She’s written in favor of restricting corporate spending on campaigns, such as in this law review article, where she wrote: We would never condone private gifts to judges about to decide a case implicating the gift-givers’ interests. Yet our system of election financing permits extensive private, including corporate, financing of candidates’ campaigns, raising again and again the question what the difference is between contributions and bribes and how legislators or other officials can operate objectively on behalf of the electorate. Can elected officials say with credibility that they are carrying out the mandate of a “democratic” society, representing only the general public good, when private money plays such a large role in their campaigns?

Now show me where in the constitution the federal government has the power to limit free speech.

[trubolotta]

Great post! Sotomayor creates the false parable of appointed judges ruling on the law and elected legislators making the law, and then equates judicial bribery to campaign financing. It’s not about supporting the person you want for your representative, it’s about bribery, hence speech must be regulated. That nasty private money. The real solution: a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[P-Marlowe]

Now show me where in the constitution the federal government has the power to limit free speech.

They don't have that power.

Now answer my question.