Muzzling the Polity

I am never reluctant to point out to students that the reason the First Amendment was first, was because the Framers listed the restrictions on government in order of importance. The most critical concerns jumped to the top of the list. That's why the First Amendment is so important to all of us. It edges the Second, but only slightly as they knew what today's liberals don't--that a government can only be checked by the existing capability of an armed citizenry.

But this is about the First Amendment today. The brief statement covers religion, speech, press, assembly and petition of our government over grievances. The First Amendment wasn't established to allow us to have Internet pornography or Maplethorpe photo exhibits, or inflammatory publicly funded art like "Piss Christ." It was to insure that we would be able to freely express our political will to our government and our fellow citizens.

That alone is why the very concept of campaign reform is so offensive. Certainly, if you scratch the emotional surface of the unthinking citizenry, they will immediately tell you that contributing to political causes and candidates causes corruption. They somehow equate getting your message out or your interests defended with buying a politician for personal use. In the process they ignore the basic fact that money is necessary to mount a credible campaign. Without the critical mass of a certain level of funding, your bid for elected office will fail. Candidates with voter appeal will generate contributions.

When I can support a candidate, it is my political speech that is being expressed. My voice can be soft as in offering a few bucks of support or I should be able to shout my favorite son's name from the rooftops with a huge check. Stopping me from spending my own money in support of those whom I deem best for the job is a violation of my First Amendment freedoms.

Yet, the slavering drones of our Legislature passed McCain-Feingold, the President signed it, and the Supreme Court skipped an opportunity to overturn it. Now the restrictions to political free speech continue:

Loss of the First Amendment Defined

How anyone can defend the concept of denying information to voters during the period immediately preceeding an election is beyond me. How they now, after Fahrenheit 9/11 and Oliver Stone's "W," attempt to somehow stretch McCain-Feingold to stop a movie about Hillary Clinton is something to frighten even the most optimistic among us.

Core to the First Amendment's protection of political expression is the concept that it must be applied even when the political position being expressed is not the one which you prefer. When we can no longer voice our political will, we will be enslaved.