Supremes Get It Right, but Just Barely

Mark Tapscott, writing in the Washington Examiner asks if you Want to know what campaign finance reform is really about. The article has a video embedded that is produced by the Cato Institute. Watch the video.

The McCain-Feingold bill was Unconstitutional, and then presidential candidate Bush said as much and promised to veto it. But when it was passed by both houses of Congress, then President Bush signed it anyway. I lost a lot of respect for Bush at that point. Also, as a progressive Republican (read RINO marching under false flag) I determined not to vote for McCain for President, should he make another run.

That this case only squeaked by with a 5-4 decision doesn't speak well for our Court. This should have been a 9-0 decision. The McCain-Feingold Law was always schizophrenic about corporations. GM, for example could not have express ad within 60 days of an election, but GE could, through its ownership of network NBC. Most newspapers and book publishers are corporations, so you wonder why they get special treatment. Yes, I know that the First Amendment singles out the press, but since Congress was trampling on one Constitutionally protected right, why not trample on others? You see, the corporation doesn't produce the ads, it is rather the people, working for the corporation, and utilizing its resources, who produce the ads, and determine what they want to say. Therefore, this law trampled on the free speech of the people.

Oddly, there is a way to reduce the money involved in politics, which is within the Constitution. That way is to reduce the regulation and intrusion of Government into the lives of the American people. Believe me that when nobody is worrying about what Washington will do to them next, the number of lobbyists, and the campaign cash will go away on their own. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for someone in Washington to realize this fact.