- Posted by Christopher Estep on March 24, 2008
I think the first amendment to the constitution is pretty clear:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What part of that is unclear? How does the McCain campaign finance law past muster? Isn't it a law? Doesn't it abridge the freedom of speech? I don't see the ambiguity in this. "No law" doesn't leave much room for creative interpretation. It doesn't say "unless..." or "except..." So how can the SCOTUS allow this?
Well, they've continued to allow it again. An Anti-Hillary group doesn't want to disclose who paid for a movie criticizing her and the courts have no problem allowing the FEC to say otherwise.
The basis is that they claim that the movie is subject to censorship and regulation because it urges people to not elect Hillary. They reject the claim by Citizens United that the movie should be treated like 60-Minutes because it's more news than political ad.
Given what Dan Rather did to the President, how can the Court see otherwise? They cooked up a fraudulent hatchet job directed at the President!