Freedom Of Speech With Money And Action

I was just pondering the SCOTUS decision that removed limits for corporate cash in elections and the elated position of most conservatives. They all are celebrating like Saints fans on Bourbon street last night. Jolemite sent me a Fox News opinion piece (isn’t everything that comes from Fox opinion) and he was absolutely apoplectic over the writer’s position that allowing corporations to essentially buy elections was a victory for the First Amendment and free speech. Yet it has me wondering why those who are usually out to restrict speech are the ones celebrating the decision.

I’m proud of my nation’s flag no matter how much I may disagree with a particular administration or congress. I proudly display old glory at my desk. Yet when someone wants to burn the flag as a sign of political disagreement I feel that there is nothing more American. I would never burn the flag but those do are as defiant as those who participated in the Boston Tea Party that the radical right now apes. Yet all those conservatives that are celebrating the idea as money as free speech have voted for anti-flag burning amendments. How exactly do they square those two things? I find allowing our democracy to essentially degenerate into a cattle auction just as abhorrent as most conservatives probably find burning the flag. The difference being I find burning the flag distasteful and conservatives are celebrating the new flow of corporate cash. I’m better than you, I win.

  • Print
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • MySpace
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • Fark
  • QQ书签

Related posts:

  1. Democracy Is Now For Sale, As Republicans Adhere To Worthington’s Law
  2. TSE Election Central: Liveblogging the Hillary Speech
  3. It’s time for Iraq to earn it’s freedom. Freedom it deserves.
  4. Obama Speaks From Exact Replica Of Bush 2004 Acceptance Speech Set
  5. On The Money Game In Election ’08

One Response to “Freedom Of Speech With Money And Action”

  1. For starters, the section of McCain-Feingold that prohibited attack ads in the waning days of elections was clearly an unconstitutional prohibition of free speech. The money aspect only deals with what they might spend on those ads, which, considering disseminating a given message by any private organization requires money, serves as a de facto limitation on said speech. So, no, you aren’t better than me.

Leave a Reply

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes