Thanks for the link, Neocon.
Just to get it straight, this is your own opinion?
"As commonly understood, taking a position on legislation, even if one has a financial interest, is not commercial speech. In addition, even the regulation of commercial speech is supposed to be narrowly tailored to achieve a governmental purpose. The governmental interest must be substantial, it must be directly advanced by the regulation, and there must be a reasonable fit between means and ends. I am not sure that McCain- Feingold qualifies even under those tests"
I would only say, that from the link you provided, the nature of commercial vs. non-commercial speech has been evolving in the courts. You cited one case where positions on public policy were viewed as non-commercial. This doesn't mean that a future court decision may not take a different position, based on abundant new evidence from the 2000 campaign.
I would only add a layman's (laywoman's?) view that to regard soft money campaigns that spend millions of dollars to defeat propositions as "non-commercial" is an insult to my intelligence. No corporation spends millions of dollars on ad campaigns unless they hope to gain hundreds of millions of dollars in profit.
Does the government have a substantial interest in permitting the good of a majority of citizens to occasionally outweigh the profits of a major corporation? With current unlimited spending, it hardly ever happens. |
