Stranger And Stranger: Supremes Strike Down AZ Campaign Finance Assistance

Astonishing. Now, by a 5-4 ruling along classic ideological lines, not only is spending identical to protected speech… weird but not quite incomprehensible… but also any government spending directed to a candidate who has less money to spend on speech is a violation of the free speech rights of the high-spending candidate, even if that candidate had government money also available to him or her.

My head hurts from trying to puzzle out the “reasoning” here. How can you infringe free speech by funding speech?

AFTERTHOUGHT: Jon Walker of FDL, after noting that “[e]ven using the logic that money equals speech the decision is nonsense,” points out that “[i]t is almost as if the court is claiming there is literal[ly] a finite zero-sum amount of speech in the world and there is no way to help one party to speak without taking speech away from others.”

Welcome to the era of Zero-Sum Speech. Messrs. Roberts and Scalia will be your hosts today.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply (NB: I'm not responsible for any ad!)

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: