Don't censor "Hillary: The Movie"

The Supreme Court heard a case last week that just might give it the vehicle to gut the misnamed campaign "reform" law known as McCain-Feingold. That law, you might remember, prohibits independent expenditures by corporations (including non-profits) and unions from advocating for or against a candidate within 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. As this Register editorial explains, that's precisely the time when speech should be the most free.

The case involved a flick produced by the conservative group Citizens United called "Hillary: The Movie," which from all reports (I haven't seen it) was about as objective as one of Michael Moore's mockumentaries. The group wanted to show it on cable and on-demand during the primaries, but the FEC enjoined it and CU appealed. During oral arguments, in response to questiuoning, the govt. lawyers suggested that perhaps books could be banned if they were produced with corporate funds. That seemed to shock the justices. I hope they invalidate the entire law. Require full disclosure of who is giving money and how much, in real time on the Internet, and let voters decide whether such donations should affect the way they vote. The electyion process is supposed to be the way the people control the state, but instead it's become another way for the state to control the people.

McCain-Feingold absurdity

Here's the Register's editorial on the case the Supreme Court heard this week regarding the "millionaire's amendment" to the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance deforem law. Its very convolutedness is an argument against the entire law, which basically restricts how much money people can donate to political candidates. (I can't see donating to any politician but I think others should be free to do so.) Because of prior court decisions Congress couldn't prevent wealthy candidates from spending as much of their own money as they want on their own races, so it tripled the donation limits for their opponentsin an effort to level the playing field. The high court in the past has said that isn't a good enough reason for spending laws. We'll see how it handles this one.