Tuesday, June 26, 2007

USA Today to the rescue of Soros and Bloomberg?

Senaturkeys think they've got problems with talk radio? Apparently, they forgot the Internet.

Trent Lott Sells Out

You'll find more examples of ads that any Senator who votes for the Amnesty Bill will face, and not just on the 'net, here. Thanks to Mickey Kaus for encouraging creation of the examples, and to yesterday's SCOTUS decision for opening the possibility. H/T Instapundit

Rounding out today's free speech news are three more items:

Liberals vs. Free Speech
by Jack Kelly notes what Liberals consider the "fairness doctrine" to mean:

PBS is the beau ideal of many liberals when it comes to free speech. Their point of view is subsidized by the taxpayers. Other points of view are suppressed.
The Rocky Mountain News weighs in with: Free speech sanity

..."Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election," he [Chief Justice Roberts] wrote. "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called the ruling "regrettable," but crowed that it left in place the "central reform" of the law that carries his name, the limits on how and from whom campaign funds can be raised.

No, senator, what is truly regrettable is that President Bush did not veto this misguided legislation when Congress passed it in 2002. Even though the president believed the law was unconstitutional, he signed it, gambling that the Supreme Court would do for him what he lacked the political will to do for himself.
I suggest Justice Roberts meant "especially" rather than "simply," and I would correct "political will" to "principle."

Predictably, USA Today weighs in against anybody's free speech, except that protected by the "press exemption:" Our view on boundaries of free speech: High Court opens door for wealthy interest groups

Obviously, USA Today isn't cognizant of billionaire currency speculator George Soros, and failed to note Michael Bloomberg's purchase of the New York City Mayoralty. Otherwise, they could not have written this:

...[The decision] rips a hole in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which since 2002 has been the primary vehicle for limiting the corrupting influence of special-interest money.

...Rather than try to plug the leaks in McCain-Feingold, Congress would be wise to consider a different approach, one that has withstood court challenges and is taking hold in seven states and two cities: voluntary public financing of campaigns. Candidates get public money to wage campaigns in exchange for agreeing not to accept large donations from special interests.
USA Today is just being Liberally obtuse here. It is, after all, their mission. Public financing is the raison d'etre of principleless political hacks like billionaire Michael Bloomberg, It lets their "corrupting influence" run amok when they opt out of PBS-style campaign finance.

No comments: