Apologists run amok is how David Broder of the Washington Post and Kevin O'Brien of the Cleveland Plain Dealer can best be described. Broder castigates his employer, the Washington Post, for calling the U.S. Supreme court decision on the behalf of Wisconsin Right to LIfE a loophole in the McCain/Feingold act. And O'Brien crazily calls it "common sense." McCain/Feingold intended that special interests could not run ads for or against specific candidates 60 days before an election. Wisconsin Right to LIfE decided to contest the law and were confronted with its prohibitions. So this anti-abortion group sued and got that suit heard in the Roberts led U.S. Supreme Court. Who then tossed out that portion of the McCain/Feingold act. Literally making a special exception for that special interest group. Which also argues that any other special interest can reclassify themselves under the same exception and use the tons of money flowing into their coffers to sway elections in one direction or another right up to election day. What neither Broder or O'Brien chose to consider is that maybe, just maybe, the voters would like to know that the politician they vote for will represent them and not just the money bags of special interest groups. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the money bags.
What is political speech? Well now, it can be found on web sites, blogs, letters to the editors, e-mail and letters sent to candidates for public office and elected officials in public office as well as YouTube. What is the difference between political speech and that which is paid for in million dollar plus ads? Who the politician is most likely to listen to, if the ad gets him into office as opposed to what can be found on YouTube. That was the corruption McCain/Feingold was trying to prevent and the corruption that Wisconsin Right to LIfE wished to continue.
Now on to the rest of O'Brien's kudos for a court not exactly exercising common sense. I probably wouldn't have much to do with a young fellow who unfurls a sign in front of his school that says "Bong hits 4 Jesus" either. Especially if the young fellow was caught dealing drugs. At the same time, is his speech less important because it got printed up on an inexpensive banner that ultimately gained national attention--as opposed to ads costing a million plus dollars intending to sway elections on the behalf of well-heeled special interests who's particular navel gazing doesn't necessarily help a nation or further democracy; who lobby behind the scenes and who won't go public again until the next election. As O'Brien details it, the sign promoted "drug use." So we also have politicians inclusive of GW who promote the sort of trade relations with countries where the imports are truly dangerous to our health. (And those politicians also came to power on million dollar plus ads put out by the special interests.) Apparently, the well-heeled can have their day in court for the disasters they represent to democracy and the nation as opposed to a young man who committed a prank in the name of free speech. China sells this nation poisoned food and toothpaste; GW allows open borders that enables narco-traffickers to operate freely; is factually far worse than a small scale drug dealer who unfurls a "bong hits 4 Jesus" sign in front of his school.
Atheists and agnostics suing over GW being able to use their tax dollars to fund faith based institutions. As O'Brien details it a (snarky) opinion from one of the justices that if they allowed this sort of thing to go forward, the the U.S. Supreme Court would become nothing more than a complaint bureau. Duh, isn't that what the judicial system is for? Isn't that what the Wisconsin Right to LIfE used it for? Guess it matters as to who has the right to do the complaining. The U.S. Supreme Court has shown considerable favoritism as to where and to whom certain laws and even the Constitution itself is applicable or not. Which is a complete contradiction to GW's initial claims of a court that only interprets the laws. If that were the case, "Bong hits 4 Jesus" would have as much right to be heard as the Wisconsin Right to LIfE ad intended to help create a supine Congress that wouldn't oppose presidential policies that truly threaten the national interest. As GW's domestic and foreign policies surely have.
This blog is political speech. And the special interests are only looking out for their self-interests. So, would I be heard in the same league as the people who have tons of money to spend? Not really, because I don't have tons of money to spend.
What is political speech? Well now, it can be found on web sites, blogs, letters to the editors, e-mail and letters sent to candidates for public office and elected officials in public office as well as YouTube. What is the difference between political speech and that which is paid for in million dollar plus ads? Who the politician is most likely to listen to, if the ad gets him into office as opposed to what can be found on YouTube. That was the corruption McCain/Feingold was trying to prevent and the corruption that Wisconsin Right to LIfE wished to continue.
Now on to the rest of O'Brien's kudos for a court not exactly exercising common sense. I probably wouldn't have much to do with a young fellow who unfurls a sign in front of his school that says "Bong hits 4 Jesus" either. Especially if the young fellow was caught dealing drugs. At the same time, is his speech less important because it got printed up on an inexpensive banner that ultimately gained national attention--as opposed to ads costing a million plus dollars intending to sway elections on the behalf of well-heeled special interests who's particular navel gazing doesn't necessarily help a nation or further democracy; who lobby behind the scenes and who won't go public again until the next election. As O'Brien details it, the sign promoted "drug use." So we also have politicians inclusive of GW who promote the sort of trade relations with countries where the imports are truly dangerous to our health. (And those politicians also came to power on million dollar plus ads put out by the special interests.) Apparently, the well-heeled can have their day in court for the disasters they represent to democracy and the nation as opposed to a young man who committed a prank in the name of free speech. China sells this nation poisoned food and toothpaste; GW allows open borders that enables narco-traffickers to operate freely; is factually far worse than a small scale drug dealer who unfurls a "bong hits 4 Jesus" sign in front of his school.
Atheists and agnostics suing over GW being able to use their tax dollars to fund faith based institutions. As O'Brien details it a (snarky) opinion from one of the justices that if they allowed this sort of thing to go forward, the the U.S. Supreme Court would become nothing more than a complaint bureau. Duh, isn't that what the judicial system is for? Isn't that what the Wisconsin Right to LIfE used it for? Guess it matters as to who has the right to do the complaining. The U.S. Supreme Court has shown considerable favoritism as to where and to whom certain laws and even the Constitution itself is applicable or not. Which is a complete contradiction to GW's initial claims of a court that only interprets the laws. If that were the case, "Bong hits 4 Jesus" would have as much right to be heard as the Wisconsin Right to LIfE ad intended to help create a supine Congress that wouldn't oppose presidential policies that truly threaten the national interest. As GW's domestic and foreign policies surely have.
This blog is political speech. And the special interests are only looking out for their self-interests. So, would I be heard in the same league as the people who have tons of money to spend? Not really, because I don't have tons of money to spend.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment