In recent years, career politicians like John McCain have decided that the First Amendment is inconvenient, irrelevant, and obsolete, and have been responsible for numerous laws designed to strangle political participation by anyone other than politicians by seeking to muzzle individuals and groups that might be critical of elected officials or encourage public participation in the political process.

Now one federal appellate court has loosened at least one of those restrictions.

A divided three-judge court ruled yesterday that ads advocating for an issue and mentioning candidates can run during an election, creating a loophole in the law that sought to control the power of big money in elections.

In a 2 to 1 ruling, the court found that the government had no compelling justification to regulate television ads such as the ones Wisconsin Right to Life Inc. broadcast in July 2004, which advocated stopping congressional filibusters against President Bush's judicial nominees.

The ads ran when Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) was running for reelection and had opposed some of Bush's nominees. The ads made no mention of Feingold's record, instead urging Wisconsin residents to call their senators to express their dissatisfaction.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, joined by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge David B. Sentelle, agreed with Wisconsin Right to Life that ads such as theirs merely advocate a position without trying to criticize the record of a particular candidate.

The ads are not targeted "electioneering communications" and should not be burdened by the reporting requirements of the federal campaign finance law, Leon wrote.

The ruling was a key victory for Wisconsin Right to Life, which had sued the Federal Election Commission on the grounds that it had infringed on the group's constitutional right to free speech.

Needless to say, i believe this decision to be a step in the right direction -- though one which is clearly only a baby-step towards restoring political speech to its proper level of constitutional protection. After all, the court in this case clearly failed to apply a relevant portion of the United States Constitution in making this decision.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now I realize that some might find the phrase "no law" ambiguous, arguing that "no law" means "any damn law they please" abridging freedom of speech or the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances. However, your average American, both now and at the time the First Amendment was ratified, has always understood that the First Amendment is intended to protect the right of the American people to be involved in the political process and to be free of government limitation and regulation when it comes to such political speech. I'm therefore pleased by this incremental restoration of a fundamental American liberty.

Posted by: Greg at 04:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 515 words, total size 4 kb.