Liberate Political Speech

LIBERATE POLITICAL SPEECH
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] The Supreme Court may be having second thoughts about upholding provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law which ban "electioneering communications" paid for out of the treasuries of independent organizations. As defined by the law, electioneering communications are advertisements that mention a candidate for federal office and are broadcast within 30 days of a primary election or within 60 days of a general election. They need not (and usually do not) tell viewers to vote for or against a candidate. Last month, a three-judge federal court in Washington ruled that the "issue ad" provision deprives free-speech rights. If the Supreme Court agrees, political speech will be given more breathing room. And such a ruling needn't derail the soft-money provisions of the McCain-Feingold legislation. But if the court isn't willing to go back to the drawing board, Congress should. An advertisement praising or criticizing a politician -- even one seeking reelection -- has more in common with the endorsement editorials that appear on this page than it does with the campaign contributions (in hard or soft dollars) that have received only minimal 1st Amendment protection from the courts. The "bright line" that needs to be drawn is the one between financing someone else's message and articulating your own.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-campaign30jan30,1...
(requires registration)