George Neumayr provides Soft-Brained Supremes:
The Supreme Court is finally discovering forms of free speech it considers "corrupting." Pornographers and flag-burners don't corrupt our politics and culture; "sham issue ads" do. Mapplethorpe-style exhibits don't corrupt the public square. No, what erodes it are nativity scenes.And then there's the big money boys completing their takeover of the Democrat party - The games those Dems play:
Basically the only form of speech the Supreme Court considers dangerous is the very political and religious speech the constitutional framers designed the First Amendment to protect. The more vital the speech is to the preservation of a republic, the more likely the justices are to ban it from public life. The more worthless the speech and destructive to a republic, the more likely the justices will carve out a precious constitutional public space for it.
"Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications and sexually explicit cable programming would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize government," writes Antonin Scalia in his dissent from the Court's ruling on "campaign finance reform."
The Court can so casually contradict itself because it has no principles. No ruling at this point bears any relation to the Constitution. The justices simply identify the Constitution with their will. What they consider "troubling to a functioning democracy" -- the phrase used in the ruling -- is unconstitutional, even if it wouldn't have troubled the constitutional framers one whit. Issue ads trouble the O'Connors. So ipso facto they are unconstitutional. No good can come from them apparently. But virtual child pornography? Well, the Court can find some value in that.
Now seeing that that is not the case, Republicans have a real dilemma. Do they abide by the rule of law in both letter and spirit, or do the gloves come off and follow the Democrats lead in the art of "new soft money"?It's all SPECTRE's doing!
The dilemma is a very real one given the fact that "Independent Political Groups" are now being established by Democratic operatives whose goal is nothing more than to usurp current campaign finance restrictions. For example, according to University of Miami public policy analyst Paul Crespo, George Soros (currency trader), Peter Lewis (insurance tycoon) and Steve Kirsch (Internet mogul) have each either donated or pledged to donate $10,000,000 to one such group. Crespo believes these donations to be the largest single gifts to presidential campaign efforts in the history of America.
What few people do know, however, is that Soros spent close to $15,000,000 dollars to help get McCain-Feingold passed.
His goal?
"To dramatically reduce the role of big special-interest money in American politics."
Even though he apparently has few issues with now breaking the law he helped pass, Soros now sees himself as someone who must bypass the system for the "good of defeating Bush in 2004." In other words, the "free speech" of this one ultra-wealthy extremist is now allowed, compared to the average donor to the pro-life cause who sends $30 a month to the Pro-Life Action League. This isn't "free speech," this is "favored speech," and the Democrats have little gumption to do anything about it.
And now – counting on Republicans to follow the rule of law that they fought hard against but have followed since its passage – Democrats intend to raise cash hand over fist in methods they agreed they would not. Proving once again that Democratic leadership will play games with truth – as long as they are the ones who benefit in the end.
