“Where the First Amendment is implicated,” the chief justice said, “the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.”On a day when the Sopranos Supremes (sorry, almost got the wrong family there) ruled a sign reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” incited to imminent lawlessness they also called tie in a case involving McCain-Feingold limits on soft-money campaign advertising, opining a TV commercial does not violate the M-F prohibition unless it explicitly urges a vote, in which case it was right (by 5-4) and anybody who didn't see that coming a long, long way off is simply not paying attention here. To prohibit any commercial that merely touches, or even blatantly touches, on a subject that may have political implications is equivalent to saying we'll all have to stop watching TV for 60 days before a general election, which might be a very excellent idea but not a constitutional one. Alas. McCain-Feingold always was a dopey idea and why it engendered all the swooning it did I do not know.
Nonetheless it seems clear the geezers on the court believe soft-money political advertising is not as big an affront to the Constitution as a bunch of goofy teens.
Link: Justices Loosen Ad Restrictions in Campaign Law - New York Times
No comments:
Post a Comment