High court's ruling is all-out assault on right to engage in politics

bamaslammer- How can you be against the Supreme Court ruling, but for soft money in politics? You don't want an unfair advantage for incumbents, but it's obvious that soft money also gives an unfair advantage in politics.

Also, how can you be for "Letting the marketplace of ideas" take care of things, but against all the smaller (and mostly, admittedly ridiculous) parties get their fifteen minutes? If they're so stupid and vile, then "the marketplace of ideas" will take care of them. I don't see why not let any number of ideas/ideaologies (sp) have their say, and let democracy take care of the rest. Let idiots be defeated on their own merits.

I'm terribly disappointed in the two-party system we've had for so long now. Two parties isn't close to enough for this country. The labels "republican" and "democrat" each cover huge groups of people who would disagree with each other on any number of issues.

SamFisher- that irony is duly noted. I was just thinking of that myself.

 

As an attorney, I assure you...I've read it. I have analyzed it, analyzed the case law which construes it and read the Federalist Papers which explain it. I spent a month of my life in Constitutional Law on nothing but the First amendment. I think I understand it.

The Amendment stands for not allowing the government to take away your right to say something. Nobody is being jailed or fined for political speech here. That was the aim of the Framers. Nowhere in the amendment the guarantee that you can make all forms of speech via any medium of your choosing. (ie time, place, and manner restrictions)

As an interesting note, the Feds have regulated the content on the airwaves since their inception. This is little different. Not even a close case.