RE: Campaign Reform and the First Amendment

[Jay Oliver <jaydeeo@aol.com>]

Joan:

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.  I'll put it another way.

The primary justification given by reformers for the necessity of infringing the freedom of speech of wealthy individuals and special interest groups is that their superior resources allow their voices to have more influence on politicians than that of "ordinary" citizens.

I assert that the resources of the news media allow them, when they editorialize on issues and make actual endorsements of candidates, to have a much louder voice and a much stronger influence also.  Now, while the opinions of The New York Times or the Detroit Free Press may NOT have mean much to a Senatorial candidate in Idaho, I suspect that most assuredly they are of considerably more influence on politicians in their own localities than are the opinions of individual "ordinary" citizens.    

For example, how can it be that any individual's or special interest group's advertisement saying, two days before Election Day, "Vote for Mr. X," is NOT to be absolutely free and protected speech, but rather is to be subject to scrutiny by Federal elections bureaucrats, while any newspaper may, WITH absolute protection, write the identical words (usually in an anonymous unsigned edititorial, BTW)?

I am NOT suggesting that muzzling the press in any way should be done.  Indeed, I believe the opposite most strongly, and I believe as strongly in freedom of speech.