ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Community Calendar

Painting With Miss Annie
11 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. Charlestown

Fellowship soup kitchen
11:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. Charlestown

Free Income tax Help
1 p.m. - 5 p.m. Charlestown

Get STE(A)MED with Arts and Sciences
4 p.m. - 5 p.m. Westerly

Zumba Dance Fitness
5 p.m. - 6 p.m. Westerly

Pilates and Strength
5:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. Charlestown

Chess Club
6 p.m. - 7:45 p.m. Westerly

Yoga
8:30 a.m. - 9:45 a.m. Charlestown

... View all of today's events


Stay Connected


ADVERTISEMENT


Founders never envisioned law limiting free speech rights


This editorial recently appeared in the Telegram & Gazette (Worcester, Mass.)

On Oct. 8, as the Supreme Court heard arguments in McCutcheon v. FEC, various left-of-center organizations asserted the justices “must” uphold remaining limits on political donations.

Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center, said “aggregate limits are exactly the type of protections the Founders envisioned.”

Closer to home, Masspirg and Common Cause Massachusetts issued a statement urging the justices “to stop handing our democracy over to special interests and wealthy campaign donors.”

These groups regularly lament the supposed ill effects of the 2010 ruling Citizens United v. FEC, which struck down portions of the 2001 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law.

If McCutcheon finishes what Citizens United began, it will be a victory for the Constitution. For, contrary to Waldman’s claim, the Founding Fathers never envisioned a law to abridge the free speech rights of Americans.

Sure, American politics has changed, and the sums involved in parties and factions promoting their visions grow ever larger. But so do the options Americans have to express their views.

Between the passage of McCain-Feingold and the Supreme Court striking down portions of it, Americans re-elected Republican George W. Bush (2004) and elected Democrat Barack H. Obama (2008).

Following Citizens United — when money allegedly flooded the process — Obama won passage of comprehensive health care reform, and was re-elected (2012).

The role of the Supreme Court is not to do the political will of any one party or faction. It is simply to determine the constitutionality of laws as they pertain to actual controversies.

The remedy for free speech that has led to results one does not like is not to petition a court to restrict the rights of other Americans to spend their money on the political process. No court can grant such relief. The only remedy is still more — and more persuasive — free speech, leading to results one prefers.



Back to ColumnGuest
Top Stories of the Week

Police Logs: Sunday, March 29, 2015 …
Westerly Gary S. Moniz, 49, of 71 Lakeside Drive, Coventry, was charged Friday, on a bench warrant issued by 4th District Court, with assault or … more ...

Randall’s Ordinary sold, will return …
NORTH STONINGTON — One of the oldest homes in the area is being saved, much to the delight of local historians. Randall’s Ordinary, the old … more ...

Police Logs: Saturday, March 28, 2015. …
Westerly James C. Ragonese, 21, of 100 Oak St., Apt. 2, was charged Friday with possession of illegal weapons other than firearms. Arrests are not … more ...

A tax sale for being 43 days late on taxes? …
I just returned back to my place of business after being away a little over three months. I forgot that the third quarter payment on … more ...

Massad wants all Burdick documents aired …
WESTERLY — As part of what he says is a continuing effort to clear his client’s name and reputation, Gregory Massad is seeking a host … more ...

Latest Comments