George Will on free speech and 527s

[S-T]

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/georgewill/2006/04/16/193804.html

David Dreier, R-Calif., explained, sort of. He said he voted against McCain-Feingold because "dictating who could give how much to whom'' violated the First Amendment, but now he favors dictating to 527 contributors because McCain-Feingold is not violating the First Amendment enough: It is not "working as it was intended.'' That is, it is not sufficiently restricting the money financing political advocacy.

Candice Miller, R-Mich., said that restricting 527s would combat ``nauseating ugliness, negativity and hyperpartisanship.'' Oh, so that is what the First Amendment means: Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech unless speech annoys politicians.
A jaw-shattering right cross!

Go George!

:claps:

[Maggie_T]

The Democrats, who favored McCain-Feingold and now are as cynical as Republicans about defending free speech only when it serves their competitive interests, will someday win control of Congress. Then they can wrap their anti-constitutionalism in the Republicans' April 5 rhetoric. They can say:

``In 2006, you Republicans said that because Democrats have done better than Republicans with 527s, the 527s should be restricted in order to 'level the playing field.' Now we will level the playing field by restoring the 'fairness doctrine' to broadcasting, thereby eliminating conservatives' unfair domination of talk radio.''

If this didn't push me to drink, nothing will. :(

[ThomasMore]

George Will is right.