It's clearly unconstitutional, and a new effort to bring it back to the Supreme Court is needed.
Mark Tapscott elaborates.
Noteworthy:
"Bob's basic point is the same one I have been making since before McCain-Feingold became law in 2002 - it is unconstitutional because it makes the definition of permissible political speech dependant upon the whims of Congress. That is in direct contravention of the First Amendment that mandates 'Congress shall make no law' governing speech."
Quoting Bob Bauer:
"The same 'interests'—special, corporate interests, in the lingo of reform—can still speak, only by new rules set by the state. The government’s argument is: what’s the difference, if the speech, by other means, is still possible? It will allow for speech, but it must be speech expressed in the form the government approves: it can impose its will and, when it does, it can show that the statute has, in the vindication of its authority, 'worked.'"
No comments:
Post a Comment