"The Constitution and the Supreme Court are clear on this subject. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition ... for a redress of grievances." This applies to organization, speech, and political activity.
The court has called voting "the most basic right," because all other rights depend on it. It has also said "freedom of expression" is essential to elections.
Two cases predict what the Supreme Court would do. In First Nat'l Bank vs. Bellotti, 1978, the court struck down a Massachusetts ad ban against corporations in referendum elections. A bank concerned with a tax referendum won the right to publish its views. In Virginia State Board of Pharmacy, 1976, the court struck a Virginia ban against druggists advertising their prices.
In Bellotti, it was not the speech of citizens, but merely of a corporation. In Virginia Pharmacy, there was no political content. Still, the court called the ban "highly paternalistic," concluding that the First Amendment has "made the choice" between "suppressing information" and the "dangers ... if it is freely available."
In dozens of cases, political speech by citizens is the most protected right in what Thomas Jefferson called "the marketplace of ideas."
This will not be a narrow decision, split between "conservative" and "liberal" justices. Such analysis is irrelevant here.
Concerning abortion, the ad ban equally silences National Organization for Women and Right to Life. It equally tells Hand Gun Control and National Rifle Association to sit down and shut up. Every organization, on all sides of every issue, is equally silenced by this bill.
Attempts to stifle political speech always attract strange bedfellows. This writer was part of the planning of Buckley vs. Valeo, 1976, which successfully challenged the first campaign finance "reform" act. The general counsel of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the legal director of ACLU were together in that group. Today, NRA and ACLU will challenge this act.
Court action will be prompt. Like the 1974 act, the current bill provides that legal challenges go to the three-judge court, then to the Supreme Court, and should be "accelerated on the dockets." Buckley went from trial to final decision in just six months. This case may move even faster.
A slam dunk...how much you wanna bet Bush is behind this all the way....behind the scenes of course.
It will be wonderful day when this all plays out and we find out that this whole thing was just a clever political move to keep the Dems quiet, and further the conservative agenda behind the scenes. Everybody knows that refusing to sign this bill would be political suicide for GWB under the unwritten rules of the Beltway(unfortunate, but politics is still politics). Why NOT let the system kill the bill for him? It would be win/win for him and the GOP that way.
Time will tell.
LOLROTF...You can't be serious? How well does this plan
work if a conservative Supreme court judge, dies?
High Stakes wouldn't you say?