The Supreme Court ruled today for free speech. Cato has the best explanation.
Today the Supreme Court struck a major blow for free speech by correctly holding that government cannot try to “level the political playing field” by banning corporations from making independent campaign expenditures on films, books, or even campaign signs.
As Justice Kennedy said in announcing the opinion, “if the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits jailing citizens for engaging in political speech.”
While the Court has long upheld campaign finance regulations as a way to prevent corruption in elections, it has also repeated that equalizing speech is never a valid government interest.
After all, to make campaign spending equal, the government would have to prevent some people or groups from spending less than they wished. That is directly contrary to protecting speech from government restraint, which is ultimately the heart of American conceptions about the freedom of speech. …
Cato also put together this video explaining the background of the case.
Hey, if Chuck Schumer is so upset, you know it must be a good decision.
Via Brietbart. Find out what others are saying at memeorandum.
Update: Obama’s vowed to undercut this decision.
This decision is analogous to throwing holy water on Count Dracula, or in this case “Count Chuckula” played by a fictional protector of the constitution. We’ll be using stakes in the next two election cycles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Absurd! A pile of money has no right of free speech. Why should more effective fundraisers have a louder voice than those on a shoestring?? Why not have NO private financing of campaign propaganda? Gove each candidate the same, and private groups may have access to funds set by the number of registered members? How does that LIMIT the free speech of any citizen?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think it’ll be good in the long run Guy. First, nobody campaigns on a “shoestring”, even at a local level. All the players, especially folks like George Soros have a “pile of money” in many political tentacles. You suggest, “give everybody the same”, well, who decides that? And if I own the corporation, I don’t want anyone telling me how to spend profits, it’s none of their damn business. Second, if you disagree with a corporation’s view or support, don’t spend a cent on their products. Third, it has just been proven in the past several days that no matter what you or others spend, or the odds, or who the “favorite” is in a race, the American voting public is aware and intelligent to discriminate and will decide, and I’m all for that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I forgot to mention that I think it will be interesting how government controlled companies like GM, Banks, (maybe even Fannie and Freddie now!) etc. will spend and to who they throw support to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All the MSM is going to say is that special interests will now own elections. What they don’t tell you is this ruling means the total opposite. Under the guise of campaign finance laws, “special interests” have been effectively shutting down political speech they don’t agree with. This ruling is most important for free speech under the First Amendment, and shuts down the monopoly of political speech by the very same MSM who now decries this ruling. HA! Take THAT, GE, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, et al. I’m giddy all over again!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Like LC mentioned, you know it must be a good decision if Chuck E Schumer, Chris Van Hollen and Barack Obama are upset.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0