What part of “no law” don’t they understand?

The Supreme Court’s approval of the campaign finance law prohibiting the contribution of “soft money” to political parties and muzzling certain political speech before an election is an abomination. For the moment, I yield the floor to Professor John Eastman of Chapman University School of Law: “Kiddie porn and political speech.”
HINDROCKET adds: I’m no expert on campaign finance, but this Q & A session with Ken Starr, who represented the losing side in the case, has a lot of information about the implications of the decision.
I have only a few comments to add: 1) Many Democrats who voted for McCain Feingold are no doubt feeling sick. They were counting on it being ruled mostly unconstitutional, I think. Now they are stuck with the soft money ban, which kills them vis-a-vis the Republicans, and the ban on advertising by unions close to elections. This wasn’t how they intended for this issue to play out. 2) It is true, as many commentators are observing, that pornography now has broader First Amendment protection than advocating the election of a particular candidate in an election. This most certainly is not what the authors of our Constitution intended. 3) The current Supreme Court is a disaster. Its decisions during the past year have struck at the heart of our society and our body politic. This highlights the importance of President Bush’s winning a second term so that he can nominate a judge or two, but more fundamentally, it raises the question why judges tend to migrate to the left after they are appointed to the Court. This is a big topic for another day, but suffice it to say that there is still little percentage in being a conservative in Washington. As long as the present climate continues–and the issue lies mainly in the media, I think–it may not matter much which party is nominating Supreme Court justices.

Responses

Books to read from Power Line