This decision was not unexpected, but it will present dramatic challenges for those of us who believe that the political system is awash in cash. The 5-4 decision, which found that a film essentially attacking Hillary Clinton as a danger to the nation, was protected speech and that provisions of federal election law that prevented its release violated the First Amendment.
“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
The issue is a thorny one. Money has overrun the system and squeezed out the voices of regular folks, but the McCain-Feingold restrictions on issue ads always has struck me as an infringment on the rights of political groups to speak on political issues.
Consider the flip test on this one: A group like MoveOn or some other liberal organization creates a documentary on George W. Bush that essentially is commentary and plays like a newspaper editorial critical of the then-president. The group wants to release the film to theaters in September or October of 2004 so that it can affect the campaign debate.
Should it be allowed? And what restrictions should be imposed? That is the crux here.
Certainly, this kind of communication should be disclosed, but should it be banned? And is it the best way to starve the system of the cash that is corrupting it?
I remain a proponent of public financing, which I believe is the best way to control this. But I doubt we’ll be hearing anyone in Washington go down this path. Instead, look for the political classes to look for some other way, far less effective (or constitutional) way to address the issue.
Send me an e-mail.
Read poetry at The Subterranean.
Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.
Hank Kalet 
Surprise, surprise, the right wing fascists on the Supreme court ruled in favor of the corporations. This is why I keep voting Democratic because I'd rather have a Democrat selecting a Supreme Court justice than the Goppers. Both parties have been bought off by the corporations but the GOP is 100% bought off while the Democrats are about 90% bought off. To make an epidemiological analogy, the GOP is the bubonic plague while he Democrats are the influenza. Ralph Nader was right about everything and I do wish we had viable third parties that had a realistic chance at the presidency and Congress. What happened to all those blowhard strict constructionists and strict constitutionalists (reich wing switch and bait artists) on the Supreme Court? Hey, look at who are the real activist judges, legislating from the bench. Irony alert.
We agree that both parties suck. (I'll quibble about which is 100 and which is 90, but what's a 20% swing between friends.) It would be nice to have a bundle of third parties around. It would alos be nice if we could eliminate the concept of Limited Liability Corporations and get back to people doing business being responsible to do what's right standing behind their mistakes. Argh!