Free Speech We Can't Afford
Of all the troubling, right-leaning decisions made by the Supreme Court last week, the one that bothers me the most is this one:
It's bewildering that the Supreme Court's decision Monday to strike down a key provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law is being hailed in some quarters as a victory for free speech. The speech in question is contained in broadcast ads, which can cost upwards of several hundred thousand dollars a minute. This kind of speech is absolutely essential to winning elections, but it is free only if you can afford it, which is not only contradictory, but also profoundly un-democratic.
If we want our democracy to be conducted on an even playing field, we've got to stop falling for the right-wing fairy tale that spending money is a form of free speech. Real change can't happen in America until we level that playing field and take the money out of politics.
Comments
I will tell you, it was the one that bugged me the most too. And free speech? For swiftboating bastards? Please..
Posted by: Dusty | July 1, 2007 03:17 AM
The argument could be made that Kerry would be president today if not for the swift boating. (Doubt that Kerry would have made a good president, but that's not my point.)
I don't understand how any advertising makes sense in an election - not by pacs, not by corporations, not by labor unions. If voters can't decide who to vote for based on candidates' policy statements, speeches, and debates, and need 1-minute advertising to make up their minds, we're going to end up with presidents like - well, George Bush.
Posted by: abi | July 1, 2007 07:58 AM