The Supreme Court found that laws preventing unions and corporations from political advertising were unconstitutional. Reaction was furious. The Economist’s blogger wrote, “For over a century, Congress has passed laws which fine citizens or associations for engaging in political speech in certain ways and at certain times.” Thus he expressed his disgust at the Supreme Court ruling.
But how does getting it wrong for a hundred years provide an excuse to continue? Why should government be able to select those whose speech it finds disagreeable? Corporations and unions would not care to contribute to attempts to influence government if the state ,,,,ere small and constrained, and couldn’t screw these real economic players.
The answer is not to constrain speech, but to constrain government.
