McCain/Feingold loses at 1st Amendment gains

The Supreme Court gave a boost to the 1st amendment today as it ruled that "There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," and "The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether." The left would have you believe that this will corporations buying congressman and women. I would suggest that one has little to do with the other. Corporations can buy congress by creating PAC's (political action committees) right now without breaking any laws. Congress can make any law and punish whatever business it wants and the business should lay down and take it? Businesses can't vote, so how else can they speak out against or for a congress person who is instep with that companies best interest?

Here is what the 1st amendment says:

Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It doesn't say only people or just voters or anything of the sort. If you owned a widget business, and congress may enact the "Outlaw all widget" Act, I think the workers at your business may want to keep the jobs they have and keep the business open.

This also would include Unions, so it's not all good...


 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments
  • No comments exist for this entry.
Leave a comment

Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Enter the above security code (required)

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.