Let a thousand flowers bloom
The NYT wrote an amusing editorial on the recent Supreme Court decision on the BCRA and James Taranto noticed. Hilarity ensued. The WSJ piece quotes the New York Times editorial as follows:
“The majority is deeply wrong on the law…Most wrongheaded of all is its insistence that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights. It is an odd claim since companies are creations of the state that exist to make money.”…
As Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in his opinion, the McCain-Feingold “campaign finance” law — which until yesterday’s ruling made it a felony for corporations to engage in certain political speech — exempted “media companies” like the New York Times Co…
McCain-Feingold, in other words, granted a small group of companies, including the New York Times Co., the privilege to speak freely about politics, while denying it to all other corporations — not only “companies…that exist to make money,” but also taxable nonprofits that exist to represent a point of view, including the advocacy arms of the Sierra Club, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association.
The editorial published by the New York Times Co. includes no mention of the special privilege the New York Times Co. enjoyed under McCain-Feingold — a privilege that creates at least the appearance of a journalistic conflict of interest. Is not the failure to disclose the New York Times Co.’s interest in McCain-Feingold a serious violation of journalistic ethics?
President Obama responded as expected to the Supreme Court ruling: “With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans…That’s why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision.”
On the other hand, another alleged administration supporter commented: “Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.” However, the man who said that didn’t tolerate dissent for too long.
By the way, the ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of the position the Supreme Court ultimately took. In a world where communication is so cheap and omnipresent, those who want to stifle or control political speech from any source are to be regarded with suspicion.