Long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, McCain and Feingold concocted their evil brew to restrict free political speech in the months prior to an election. Free political speech before an election was, believe it or not, exactly that sort of speech which the Founding Fathers meant to protect with the First Amendment.
Many of us conservatives thought Bush would veto this clearly unconstitutional law, and were somewhat taken aback when he signed it. We thought, however, that he just had other things on his plate and was counting on the U. S. Supreme Court to find the bill unconstitutional, since it clearly was so. But no, the U. S. Supremes were veering off the left wing at the time and decided that the First Amendment could, like the Second, be ignored at the whim of politicians.
Now, however, another case has come before the Supremes and, having returned closer to reality and the Constitution, they have decided that, gee whiz, political speech is protected, even if it is uttered in close proximity to an election. Imagine that!
Three justices, perhaps the only three who have actually read the Constitution, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, would have overruled the court's 2003 decision upholding the constitutionality of the provision. Imagine that! They would have allowed the First Amendment to stand!
On the other hand, said Justice Souter, "Thus, what is called a 'ban' on speech is a limit on the financing of electioneering broadcasts by entities...that insist on acting as conduits from the campaign war chests of business corporations."
Harry Potter, when asked for a comment, said it was clear that Justice Souter had used the wrong magic incantation. If he had just said "...the campaign war chests of EEEEVVILL corporations," he might have prevailed. Or, continued Potter, even if he had used an incantation of lesser power, chanting "...the campaign war chests of BIG BUSINESS," it might have been sufficient. But no, Souter used the entirely inadequate incantatin "business corporations."
Justices Roberts and Alito, perhaps trying to demonstrate that they are moderates, refused to find the McCain-Feingold-Bush Act unconstitutional in its entirety, merely concluding that speech may not be proscribed simply because it is intended to influence an election. Upon this statement, the Founding Fathers were heard to begin spinning madly in their graves, causing minor tremors on the seismographs within a 500 mile radius of their respective burial places.
To return to the original confusion of conservatives concerning the signing of the McCain-Feingold Act by George W. Bush, it now appears that he was NOT counting on the Supreme Court to abrogate it, as the Bush Administration is now coming down foursquare on the side of those who would restrict free speech in the USA.
It's becoming quite confusing, the sorting out of just what principles guide President Bush. He's against terrorism and against allowing the enemy to strike before opposing him, which is good. He's for lower taxes, which is good. But he appears to be for secure borders for Iraq but not for the USA, and he's for democracy and free speech in Iraq but not in the USA, at least in the months before an election--precisely when free speech would appear most necessary!
Perhaps, if we could afford it right now, the Bush Administration should take a time out and decide just what principles do guide it and when and where they should be applied. I propose they should apply universally for all people, including U.S citizens. And thinking about Roberts and Alito and their position on this case, I am beginning to fear that they are not quite the originalist jurists we had hoped.