New York Post columnist Ryan Sager writes in a September 6th column about last week's FEC ruling that left in place a provision from the McCain-Feingold Act that stops unions, corporations, and nonprofits from mentioning a candidate in issue ads 60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary.
Sager points out a fundamental flaw with trying to regulate campaign ads (via NY Post):
But the years since McCain-Feingold's passage have shown that, whatever supposed risk of corruption may lie in allowing issue ads to run unfettered, there's simply no way to regulate unwanted speech without restricting perfectly legitimate speech.
In addition, it is those who make the laws who decide which speech is appropriate (via NY Post):
Plus, there's a tremendous arrogance in the idea of even trying to determine what speech is legitimate and what is unwanted. Who gets to decide? The answer is simple: Incumbents (a k a congressmen) do. And their only agenda is to hold onto what they've got: their incumbency.
Sager writes about the real effect of last week's FEC ruling (via NY Post):
...for two elections now (2004 and 2006), grass-roots groups will have gone without their basic constitutional right to criticize their government.
It's time for this farce to end, but, for now, there's no end in sight.
I am increasingly becoming more passionate for leaders to discuss petitioning the government so openly. Although this basic right is protected by our very Federal Constitution, it almost seems rebellious to disagree, which isn't American. And what IS free speech if only certain things are considered "appropriate"? Let's restore Liberty to the U.S..
What upsets me about Campaign Finance Laws and other free speech violations is that both parties do it. And why? To maintain power. By restricting or gagging opponents or critics, there is no challege to their authority.
I am afraid that this trend will continue unless it is stopped in its tracks. Libertarians, and other people of good conscience, should continue to oppose and speak against this trespass intensely. This not only violates the Constitution but violates every norm of decency.
I am increasingly becoming more passionate for leaders to discuss petitioning the government so openly. Although this basic right is protected by our very Federal Constitution, it almost seems rebellious to disagree, which isn't American. And what IS free speech if only certain things are considered "appropriate"? Let's restore Liberty to the U.S..
Posted by: mrparish at September 7, 2006 01:29 PM