The Press's Attitude Toward Campaign FinanceMike Rappaport

Over at Balkinization, Barry Friedman explores why the Supreme Court chose to narrowly construe the Voting Rights Act in NAMUNDO v. Holder last June in an effort not to declare it unconstitutional and how that relates to the Supreme Court's upcoming decision in Citizens United on whether to declare a significant portion of McCain Feingold unconstitutional.   In explaining why the Supreme Court might rule narrowly in Citizens United, Friedman offered this rather curious suggestion:

A related answer might involve the media. Perhaps the justices may have more leeway in First Amendment cases because the media – which understandably loves the First Amendment – offers the Court some cover from the political heat in these cases.

I did a double take on this one.  The media may often favor the First Amendment, but the media loves campaign finance reform, even when it restricts free speech rights.  This is plain from looking a media editorials on such matters.  It also conforms to the general liberal bent of the media.  And, not least importantly, the media benefits from campaign finance reform, because media corporations are not restricted by these laws whereas their competitors, such as political ads, are.

Comments

[Lou Gots]

oNRA4EVR

That's what the BCRA,and,on reargument, Citizens United, are all about. The problem facing the organs of state coercion from institutions such as Citizens United, or Emily's list, or the N.R.A.'s Institute for Legislative Action, is that they are purpose-built to navigate to rocks and shoals the state throws in their way.

The genius of business organizations is that they are like retroviruses, mutating so as to defeat the immune system's soon to be obsolete counter-measures. The briefs and oral arguments in the foregoing cases bring this to the fore. This quality of not-for-profit advocacy organizations in particular eludes government suppression. Most of the arguments for muzzling combinations of individuals exercising their rights of speech,press, assembly and petition dissapate when those organization were formed specifically for the exercize of those very First Amendment rights.

You are correct, of course, in that the MSM does not wish to share the First Amendment with us bitter clingers. Both the political classes, and their media toadies would be quite happy if our voices were thus silenced. Too well do they recall how we have changed history with our stands against every gun-grabbing scheme they have thrown at us, and how we have sent off powerful anti-gun erstwhile legislators.