[conservatism_IS_compassion]

McCain-Feingold, however, is only unconstitutional if you think that spending is a form of speech since it only limits spending. I'm not convinced on that point.

Well, I'll cede the point - if you can show me any press that runs for free. Newspapers have to buy paper and ink, and buy and maintain the presses, and operate the presses, and distribute the papers. That all costs money.

You will say, "but that money comes from the sale of the paper." And I will reply, "not really - the newspaper lives and dies by advertising revenue - and not only so, but a newspaper may be started up by an entrepreneur who got his money making sausage or something."

But all that aside, the money paid by the newspaper customer is different from the money I donate to the Republican Party exactly how? To prove that it is in any sense different, you must first prove that the newspaper is not a political party, nor in league with one. And that, my friend, you will find surprisingly difficult to prove. Because the truth is that journalism which calls itself "objective" systematically is aligned with the Democratic Party.

Or, to make my case clearer, the Democratic Party does not have any principles which require it to contest the idealogical field with "objective journalism." So far as print journalism is concerned, that is a scandal only in the sense that it is amazing that we have so many suckers in the country who are completely oblivious to that possibility. In the case of government-licensed broadcast journalism, OTOH, the fact that government licensees whom the government proclaims to be "broadcasting in the public interest" claim to be objective but actually broadcast de facto Democratic propaganda is a hair-on-fire scandal.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[gondramB]

Well, I'll cede the point - if you can show me any press that runs for free. Newspapers have to buy paper and ink, and buy and maintain the presses, and operate the presses, and distribute the papers. That all costs money. You will say, "but that money comes from the sale of the paper." And I will reply, "not really - the newspaper lives and dies by advertising revenue - and not only so, but a newspaper may be started up by an entrepreneur who got his money making sausage or something."

Hmmm. That's a really good argument. But is advertising the same as journalism in terms of the founder's intent for freedom of the press? I'm not sure. Did they intend to protect the right to advertise anything? Can the government put limits on advertising? If we argue that spending, in the form of advertising is press then there are a lot of practices that will become protected, not just political ads.

[Congressman Billybob]

The Supreme Court ruled in 1976 in Buckley v. Vallejo that spending money for political campaigns IS a part of First Amendment freedom of speech. That is what makes the Court's decision in McConnell v. FEC, 5-4, upholding the Campaign Finance "Reform" Act an illogical and dishonest decision.

It is such a dishonest decision, and the result was so appalling, that I resigned from the bar of the Supreme Court in disgust. This is one of the decisions that I think can and will be reversed by getting one or two more Justices on the Court who take their oaths of office seriously, and will protect and defend the Constitution.

Logically, it isn't even close, to argue that spending money for advertising, printed materials, phone calls, and such is anything but part and parcel of free speech on political campaigns. It is contemptible that five Justices on the current Court voted to wipe their feet on the Constitution.

I hope I wasn't too harsh. LOL.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Reporting on the 2,000th American Death in Iraq"