The kerfuffle about the Supreme Court permitting virtually unfettered use of private money in campaigns is based upon a flawed ruling by the SCOTUS years ago.
The SCOTUS has determined that Freedom of Speech includes Freedom of Expression — that is why You can burn the flag, or immerse a cross in a jar of urine, or paint yourself with Hersey syrup and dance naked on a stage..
Either those constitute Freedom Of Speech (as Freedom of Expression) — and if they do, then donating to candidates without limit is certainly Freedom of Expression — or perhaps “ speech” MEANS speech, in which case NONE of the above are necessarily Freedom of Speech.
(That is my contention. Speech means speech — not flag burning, or Serano’s jar, or dancing dripping syrup, or unlimited cash donations by the rich.
But you have to take all or nothing if you read the First to include Freedom of Expression. Those who applaud the Freedom of Expression in the “Arts” now have experienced the Law of Unintended Consequence.
Freedom of Expression is a wholly made-up son of the Supreme Court, just as The Right to Privacy is made up. Neither exist in the Constitution and both – if they should exist, they should be Amendments to the Constitution.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
Allen's Weblog 
Leave a Reply