Why All The Shouting: Campaign Finance And The First Amendment (June 18, 2012)
. . .
C1 “Hard for me ever to depart from an absolute view of the First Amendment right of free speech. But adhering to an absolute view of the First Amendment right of free speech requires one to depart from an absolute view of the First Amendment right of free speech.”
C2 “I think I hear you.”
C1 “Limits on campaign spending are limits on free speech. But not to place limits on free speech for those who can shout and scream and drown out others with their dollars places a limit on the free speech rights of others who are silenced because they do not have the dollars to make their speech heard.”
C2 “Without some limits, one person can shout louder and shout down another person. Without some limits, one person can silence hundreds of other persons.”
. . .
C1 “Johnny Edwards is exonerated of charges that he engaged in campaign shenanigans and Roger Clemons is exonerated of charges that he lied to Congress. But Johnny Roberts misled Congress and then distorted a ready case to change the law involving campaign finance in Citizens United.”
C2 “Does not seem right. Johnny E. is still a sleaze and Roger Clemons fibbed to Congress but not beyond a reasonable doubt.”
C1 “The decision in Citizens United allows Johnny R’s cohorts to stack and pack the Senate and preclude any inquiry.”
C2 “Still does not seem right.”
. . .
[See the “e-ssay” titled ”Why Johnny And Roger? (April 30, 2012).” The John Edwards and Roger Clemens trials are additional indictments of the failing American legal system.]
Bumper sticker of the week:
“A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.” Citizens United v. FEC, __ U.S. ___, ___, 130 S.Ct. 876, 954 (2010) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
e-commentary 
Leave a Reply