Supporters of Congress' proposed government takeover of health care, including Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, have taken to claiming that they are on "the right side of history."
If you've ever wondered just how out of touch university faculty can get, look no further than the behavior of the University of New Hampshire's faculty union during its recent contract talks.
More Editorials >>>
- > Right on rights: Obama gives hope in China (23)
- > How about spending? An elephant forgets (10)
- > Tobacco shakedown: It's not 'for the children' (19)
- > Social blunders: Our President the yokel (69)
- > Board benefits: Nix health coverage (8)
- > The KSM trial: War? What war? (51)
- > Owned: You belong to Nancy Pelosi (70)
- > Paying for officers: Gatsas gets it right (16)
- > No guarantees: Eagle Times subsidy is wrong (34)
- > Abortion extremism: Shaheen falls on the far left (48)
- > Culture clash: Old NH meets new NH (5)
- > Dump Hackett Hill: It's a public money pit (4)
- > Unsung citizens: They say 'thanks' for us all (8)
- > A new right: Access to abortion funds (55)
- > Default or pay? Arena rock and a hard place (16)
Free to speak: Except when they say shut up
If you want to know why so many pro-lifers refuse to endorse Sen. John McCain for President despite McCain's soild pro-life record, look no further than last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life.
In August of 2004, Wisconsin Right to Life wanted to run three television ads asking Wisconsin residents to contact the state's two U.S. senators and urge them not to filibuster President Bush's pro-life judicial nominees. But after Aug. 15, running those ads would have been a federal crime.
The Democratic Senate primary was 30 days later, and one of Wisconsin's senators, Russ Feingold, was up for reelection. He just happened to be a co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law that had passed two years before. How convenient that his law banned Wisconsin Right to Life from running ads even mentioning his name within 30 days prior to the election.
Like many non-profit groups, Wisconsin Right to Life is incorporated. The McCain-Feingold law bans all corporations, for-profit and not, from using their general funds to pay for any "electioneering communication" within 30 days before a federal primary election and 60 days before a federal general election.
On Monday the Supreme Court ruled that Wisconsin Right to Life was denied its constitutional right to free speech. Its forbidden ads were protected by the First Amendment because they were not the "functional equivalent" of express advocacy. The ads "may reasonably be interpreted as something other than an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate," the court concluded.
That is how the First Amendment is dissected under Sen. McCain's law. Immediately prior to an election, citizens gathered into a corporate body for organizational purposes may finance advertisements that do not urge other citizens to vote for or against a political candidate, but they may not finance ads that do.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," stated the First Amendment until John McCain got hold of it.
The court ought to have struck down that entire provision of McCain-Feingold. Sadly, it did not. And so the First Amendment, as amended by Sen. McCain, still reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press except as Congress sees fit for the purposes of fighting political corruption or the appearance thereof."

.jpg)



Andrew Cline has been editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader since October of 2001. His writing has appeared in more than 100 newspapers and magazines, including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and National Review.
Print
Email
Mobile
Reader comments
YOUR COMMENTS
This decision is just another example of how the Robert's court has operated since its inception (i.e. within the parameters of existing precedent notwithstanding the utterly extra- and/or anti-constitutional nature of that precedent) and it should come as no suprise being as though he promised the same during his confirmation hearings. Anyone who is expecting a drastic reversal of the Warren Court era should also expect to be disappointed.
- Joseph P. Geiger, Jr., Merrimack
NOTE: If you have visited this page before, newer comments may be hidden. Press F5, or hold down the Ctrl key while reloading or refreshing the page. (Another option for Firefox users is the Clear Cache add-on.)