I didn't review matters for up- to- dateness, so you may be on to something on that point. The ACLU continues to be against McCain- Feingold, though, for the sort of reasons adduced, though they have there own version of reform, which is public financing.
The essence of free speech is the ability to speak with only reasonable constraints as to time and place, in order to keep the peace. The essence of freedom of the press is the ability to publish without prior restraint, with limited exceptions, such as national security in time of war. Freedom of speech and of the press is essentially meant to protect political speech, in order to prevent the government from dictating the terms of public debate. Anything which seriously impairs the ability of individuals or groups to engage in political speech or publication (which, in this day and age, includes all media) is ipso facto adverse to the First Amendment, and one must show a compelling interest to even contemplate it. I do not believe that sufficient reason has been demonstrated to curtail freedom of speech in that way. Freedom of speech is of such a high priority that clear corruption must be shown, not a speculative disdain for the effects of "special interests" and promises of purer politics as a result. For one thing, equality is not equitable. A challenger should have the chance to spend more money than an incumbent; those out of the mainstream should be able to fund alternative sources to get their points across, if they do not feel represented in the mainstream media; the less popular opinion should have the chance to make its case, against the tide of sentiment. For another, there are often traps, despite the attempt to settle all issues: for example, certain advocacy magazines are dependent upon various sources of funding. Would they be in violation if they get general funds from a corporate or union source and then express an opinion in an editorial, even if the opinion were consistent with their editorial postures? Or, for example, should a union be able to provide manpower to get out the vote, but a corporation be limited because it writes a check? Generally, is the actual effect of such "reform" going to create more of a mess than leaving things alone? I think so, and therefore do not see why the First Amendment should suffer abridgement........ |
