(no subject)
In a stunning display of stupidity and ignorance (IMHO), the Supreme Court just ruled that corporations, unions and non-profits can spend freely to support federal elections. In a 5-4 decision, they eased long-standing restrictions on "independent spending" by corporations and unions in political campaigns. They based their ruling on the First Amendment, ruling, in effect, that to limit funding is to limit speech.
Now, I am a firm and ardent believer in free speech. I'm of the Evelyn Beatrice Hall school: I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. But, this ruling, in my opinion, is absolutely idiocy.
Because money is NOT speech.
Freedom of speech does not mean you have the freedom to write huge checks. Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to cajole, bully or influence lawmakers with the power of the purse. Freedom of speech is the right to stand on a soapbox, literally or metaphorically, and be heard. That is it.
To allow an entity to exert overwhelming financial influence into a decision of the people is the antithesis of free speech. It will and historically has had the effect of drowning out dissenting and differing voices by dint of volumne if nothing else. It gives a segment, often united in special interest, an undue influence in a process that should be decided by careful review of the facts of a candidate or issue.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now, I am a firm and ardent believer in free speech. I'm of the Evelyn Beatrice Hall school: I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. But, this ruling, in my opinion, is absolutely idiocy.
Because money is NOT speech.
Freedom of speech does not mean you have the freedom to write huge checks. Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to cajole, bully or influence lawmakers with the power of the purse. Freedom of speech is the right to stand on a soapbox, literally or metaphorically, and be heard. That is it.
To allow an entity to exert overwhelming financial influence into a decision of the people is the antithesis of free speech. It will and historically has had the effect of drowning out dissenting and differing voices by dint of volumne if nothing else. It gives a segment, often united in special interest, an undue influence in a process that should be decided by careful review of the facts of a candidate or issue.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."