March 07, 2005

Just An Aside On The Whole FEC Thang

I haven't written about this yet because, well, plenty of people were doing a fine job. But, I'd just like to get a word in edgewise because something needs to be noted that I haven't seen noted elsewhere.

Let's take this tidbit:

"Given the impact of the Internet," Ms. Weintraub said, "I think we have to take a look at whether there are aspects of that that ought to be subject to the regulations. But again, I don't want this issue to get overblown. Because I really don't think, at the end of the day, this commission is going to do anything that affects what somebody sitting at home, on their home computer, does."

No. They will not. Why?

A major reason why McCain-Feingold got by the Supreme Court is that the Court ruled that political contributions are a transfer of property, not protected free speech.

SCOTUS: Money does not equal speech.

What that wacky judge Colleen Whats'er-Face seems to be saying was that blogging and linking to materials found elsewhere on the 'net should be considered a contribution-in-kind to a campain.

Judge Whats'er-Face: Speech equals money.

What the huh?!

[And, yeah, I know, I should go find her real name. Let's just call this "punk blogging"!]

The very justifications for upholding McCain-Feingold are what make Judge Whats'er-Face's ingorant opining diametrically opposed to federal law.

If speech=money then money=speech, that speech is protected, and McCain-Feingold has no leg to stand on.
As it is: Judge Colleen Whats'er-Face's blather has no Constitution leg to stand on.

McCain-Feingold and the SCOTUS ruling that upholds it do not lend to her thesis; they contradict it.

(Or, at least, that part of it that inspired the Weintraub comments that I and others have been so worried about.)

Posted by Tuning Spork at March 7, 2005 10:02 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Site Meter