Chewin in the Chung

Aaroneous Say:

http://www.reason.com/links/links121003.shtml

I sez:
That is a remarkably poorly-reasoned article, ironically enough. It answers neither my argument nor the more obvious one- that free speech is limited in the U.S. all the time, in a range of cases. The complaint about the S.C. decision are really the worst kind of conservative whining- the bill was passed with Republican support in the legislature, and found constitutional by a court of Republican appointees. And Sanchez's bitch is that there is a loophole?

He say:
It's not conservative whining. It's the concept of free speech. (and wouldn't whining be included in that?)

How do you limit the money issue when it will directly limit free speech?

Look, I'm all for somehow limiting the role of special interests and soft money, but they seem to find a lot of loopholes...so you end up with the same result. Limit soft funds and make a bunch of rules...but then have to make an exemption for the free press (no duh!) so we have groups start up their own newspapers, etc.

Maybe a simple rule on transparency, without any limits at all is best...that way you won't "hide" your funding and we can see who Adolf Coors or Soros is supporting and draw our own conclusions. Better yet, make any donation NON-tax deductible. That would cut contributions significantly without limiting anyone's rights.

Love and kisses,
Aaron

I opine:
"How do you limit the money issue when it will directly limit free speech?"

The same way you pass laws that prevent me from owning a Howitzer. The Founding Fathers had some pretty clear ideas about what rights they wanted to defend, and they intentionally used broad language to protect those rights. Technology has created advances that allows a literal reading of these rights to be so broad that it will impair society or the democratic principles upon which it is founded. So I don't get a Howitzer, I don't get five wives (no matter what Joe Smith tells me), and while I'm still free to blog, or say, or campaign for all kinds of ideas, there are limitations on my spending.

I call it conservative whining because they're picking the free speech issue that affects their ability to influence elections. The FBI is spying on war protesters and suggesting they be treated as potential terrorists. Sounds like a free speech issue if there ever was one. So is the Right up in arms about this? Pshaw. Dirty nasty hippies want to make a political statement by burning the U.S. flag. Do conservatives step up for their right to free speech then? Hell no. Only the mamby-pamby pinko liberals at the ACLU do.

Arguing that there are loopholes in the legislation doesn't cut it, because Republicans were against the legislation from the getgo, and not because it wouldn't work. Because it was an attempt to eliminate the perversion of the democratic process that favored Republicans.

Rock on,
Karl