• Regulating Speech

      Once again, as the Presidential election approaches, pundits are indignant about the influence money has on politics. In my syndicated column this week, I discuss the Supreme Court's decision to give free speech to corporations:

      In 2008, a court ruled that TV ads for a nonprofit corporation's critical documentary about then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton violated McCain-Feingold. When the Supremes overturned that ruling, saying that corporations and unions may fund political ads, the mainstream media were so upset, they sounded like there had been a coup.

      The New York Times said the decision "strikes at the heart of democracy." The Washington Post quoted someone saying it "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions."

      Give me a break. Some in the mainstream media act like the only group that should be free to comment on politics are the media.

      The very first amendment that the Founders chose to add to the Constitution couldn't be more clear: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech ...."

      Yet most people support laws against political speech -- when they don't like the speakers.

      My new book, "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails -- but Individuals Succeed," shows why asking government to regulate political speech is a poisonous idea.

      The rest of the column here.

      TAGS
      Free Speech
      Syndicated Column
      regulations
      Supreme Court
      First Amendment