The use of organizations presumably dear to our liberal hearts to set up red herring examples of why we should cheer this ridiculous SCOTUS decision is really inspiring. Illustrating ACLU violations as beneficiaries of this new decision is dishonest.
Also, if ACLU or an organization has an issue with something an incumbent or candidate has done, they can go to that candidate's opponent and give them all the ammo they have. The opponent can use that to beat down the transgressor (or not). Requiring the ACLU or another org to refrain from attacking a candidate at the last minute of an election is a very reasonable idea and doesn't infringe on rights any more than prohibiting speech that incites a disaster.
And noting that the decision didn't impact donation limits is also weak. Coordinated advertising to influence an election is considered an "in-kind contribution" (the value is treated as a donation). Given the donation limits, running an ad on a network station for a candidate isn't possible.
This decision enables corporations to more easily work around this problem. They can saturate the airwaves in the weeks leading to election day and allow candidates to save their money. Previously, the limits on last-minute advocacy advertising forced the candidates to raise and spend their own money in the last month. So in effect, this decision helps corporations fund campaigns in ways they haven't been able to do since the advent of mass media.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment