Is that really consistent with founder's intent? Did they intend to create a system with unlimited spending and so large of an advantage for the wealthy?
Unambiguously, my answer is yes. The First Amendment lays no restrictions on the people in their capacity as (present or future) speakers and printers; it lays restrictions only on the government.The mistake we are encouraged to make is to think of freedom of the press as protecting our "right to know." We don't have any such thing as a "right to know." That would be inconsistent with our right to our own opinion - the speaking and printing of which the First Amendment so clearly protects. What is the point of a right to speak, if the only thing you can speak is what the government says that I have a right to know? What if you say something which contradicts what I "have a right to know?" Are you violating my rights by preventing me from "knowing" what I have a "right to know?"
Propaganda promoting a so-called "right to know" is of a piece with the promotion of the conceit that mass market journalism is "objective." Not only does the First Amendment not assure us that journalism is objective, it protects the journalist from any government prosecution on any such ground as a failure to be - by the government's lights, or yours or mine - "objective." The Constitution certainly says nothing about requiring that "opinion" be confined to an "editorial page" - in the founding era Hamilton and Jefferson sponsored competing newspapers in which to conduct their partisanship. A situation in which the entire newspaper would be what we now think of as the editorial page . . .
Indeed, sponsorship of a newspaper by a political party can scarce be said to differ in kind from "political advertising," now can it? One might just as well have a political party and a newspaper joined at the hip. Indeed that is what we now do have; as I noted earlier the Democratic Party adopts no principles which prevent it from associating itself with the leftist slant which inheres in journalism which is arrogant enough to proclaim its own objectivity.
It is convenient for both the Democratic Party and "objective" (really arrogant) journalism to protest the independence of journalism from Democratic politics, but neither of the two has any incentive to actually seperate themselves. So what we see in practice is not merely advertising in newspapers by the Democratic Party but the mutual coopting of all of "mainstream" journalism - print and broadcast - and the Democratic Party. Only thus is it possible for CBS to attack the Republican candidate for POTUS on a Democratic (Lt. Bush skipped out on the National Guard whereas Lt. Kerry brought home medals from Vietnam) theme and adducing as "proof" amateurishly fraudulent documents - and subsequently investigate itself and give itself a clean bill of health as being "objective." And see the entire MSM report that risable fraud straight. Not a single member of the MSM laughed when they reported it!
"Unambiguously, my answer is yes. The First Amendment lays no restrictions on the people in their capacity as (present or future) speakers and printers; it lays restrictions only on the government."
I follow yor constitutional argument perfectly. It really doesn't say the press has to be owned to have freedom of the press. I no longer feel ambiguous about that - I appreciate you walking me through it.
This argument would not just free up soft money but individual contributions direct to the campaign. Should the SC ever take this (really logical) position it sure would make the individual large donor more important. That would make for very interesting politics.