Setback for the Censors - George Will, WaPo
As an addendum to Emily's post on the recent Supreme Court case concerning campaign ads comes George Will, bastion of all things in old conservativism. Naturally, Will takes an opposing view, arguing that the McCain-Feingold bill suppresses free speech by preventing normal organized citizens from putting up a political ad when it was so close to an election. I'm going to cut in the middle of the Gordian knot here and say that both Will and Emily are right in a very distinct way. While Will does have a point that the McCain-Feingold bill does limit free speech when it comes to campaign advertising, I think Emily makes the more salient point about the influence of non-normal citizens in campaign advertising. Will is examining a very narrow circumstance of where the McCain-Feingold bill does not succeed in leveling the playing field of campaign finance. And yet, the larger point here is the continued assumption that money equals speech. If it is true that the Constitution bans any serious abridgment of our right to free and open speech as well as granting us equal opportunity (as it does in the 14th amendment) then one cannot say that money equals speech. Such a formulation defies the idea of equal access and opportunity. Simple because a group can raise the money to put up a campaign ad does not mean they have a greater right to speech than a group that cannot raise the money. It simply doesn't make sense in theory and makes absolutely no sense in practice.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Will v Cunningham
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This post is so muddled and confused it's hard to know where to start in taking it apart. But let's start here:
If it is true that the Constitution bans any serious abridgment of our right to free and open speech ...
No, it doesn't ban any "serious" abridgment of free speech. It bans any abridgment.
And just because entity/person A has more money available to spend on free speech doesn't mean your right is being abridged, and there's not denial of equal access. It's the government's job to ensure the law is applied fairly and equally, but it's not the government's job to ensure equal results.
The New York Times can afford printing presses that I can't. Does that mean I'm being treated unequally? You can afford the computer/software/Internet access for this blog that some people can't. Does that mean you have an unfair advantage?
Your attempt to sound deep and profound really just shows you really don't know how to think clearly.
George Will is right. McCain-Feingold is an unconstitutional monstrosity, and the sooner it dies, the better. You, of all people, who rely on the First Amendment to do what you do should understand that.
Alright, Anonymous Coward (in /. parlance) I take your point. But you still have to refute the argument that money somehow equals speech. Thus anyone with enough money can easily outspend, thus outspeak, those of lesser means. You're taking an absolutist position in regard to the 1st amendment when I worry about the abuses to the that amendment. In the world we currently inhabit, the money as speech formula grants those with the largest bank accounts the greatest amount of speech. More to the point, those who have the least means have the least amount of speech. That is, if we want to go purely by bank accounts. What I am simply saying is that simply because you have more money than me doesn't mean you have more speech as me and I think the law should reflect that. Money will always inhabit politics, that's just the nature of the game. But we can decide that a dollar bill does not equate to an opinion. This is the reason why things like poll taxes are banned. The money as speech equation is just another form of a poll tax, albeit an informal one.
Oh, and one more point. I say the 1st amendment bans any serious abridgment because of the whole 'can't yell fire in a crowded room' scenario. There are reasonable limits to every amendment, that's why we have courts.
Post a Comment