How much more proof do we need that an attack on First Amendment rights is an attack on First Amendment rights? I’m talking about campaign finance regulations and particularly the latest addendum, McCain-Feingold.
It’s precisely the kind of speech most crucial to the preservation of a free society — political speech — which is repressed by the likes of McCain-Feingold.
Consider the treatment being accorded Citizens United, a conservative organization that produced a movie called Hillary: The Movie.
As a three-judge panel pointed out in its ruling against Citizens United, under McCain-Feingold an “electioneering communication” is any “broadcast, cable or satellite communication” that refers to a candidate for federal office within 60 days of a general election or within 30 days of a primary. Such “electioneering communications” are subject to “a host of restrictions.” Oh.
It gets worse. The U.S. Supreme Court has just declined to hear an appeal in the case. They are seven of the same nine justices who said McCain-Feingold passed constitutional muster when a challenge of it first hit their desk. But the First Amendment — which is a part of the Constitution, by the way — does not say that freedom of speech ends where campaigns begin. Obviously.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
1 reply on “McCain-Feingold: The Movie”
Great common sense here. Wish I’d thugoht of that.