EDITORIALS A Sad, Sad Day.

"This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, and sexually explicit cable programming would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government. ... The premise of the First Amendment is that the American people are neither sheep nor fools, and hence fully capable of considering both the substance of the speech presented to them and its proximate and ultimate source. If that premise is wrong, our democracy has a much greater problem to overcome than merely the influence of amassed wealth. Given the premises of democracy, there is no such thing as too much speech."

From the dissent of Justice Antonin Scalia in the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision upholding most of the McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform" legislation

"Our precedents teach, above all, that government cannot be trusted to moderate its own rules for suppression of speech. The dangers posed by speech regulations have led the court to insist upon principled constitutional lines and a rigorous standard of review. The majority now abandons these distinctions and limitations."

From Justice Anthony Kennedy's dissent

"To critics of the ruling, including dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia, giving congressional incumbents a virtually free hand to set the rules of elections is like letting the reigning Scrabble champion rewrite the dictionary."

From "McCain-Feingold Ruling Angers Activists on Both Left and Right," by David Von Drehle, Washington Post

Let me begin by referring you to James Bopp's and Richard Coleson's thoughtful explication of the High Court's tragically misguided McCain-Feingold decision, technically known as McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, on page 24. Unlike yours truly, theirs is an attorney's view of a very complicated decision.