The NYT says the NRA will engage in a “direct challenge” of the new, unconstitutional campaign finance laws. I have two points and a question.
First, yes, I believe the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court upheld it 5-4, but I also believe the Supreme Court makes poor decisions, as much as I hate to admit it (I like to have faith in my government). Look at how the NYT condenses the law:
Under the new campaign finance law, groups are no longer allowed to use soft money to buy radio or television spots that advocate or oppose candidates within 60 days of a general election or within 30 days of a primary or a national political convention.
Tell me how that is not an undue restriction on the people’s right to free speech. At precisely the time when freedom speech is most important, groups are forbidden from supporting or attacking a candidate. I’m sorry, give me special-interest group influenced elections, I’d rather have that than a scary abridgement of my right to free speech.
Second, the NYT makes a false claim that the NRA is making a “direct challenge.” It’s an indirect challenge at best. The law forbids groups from supporting or attacking candidates. The NRA is a group devoted to an issue and will be looking at issues. Granted it will probably be pretty obvious who the NRA wants to win the election, but it’s stupid to say they are directly challenging the law because they support an issue that one of the candidates obviously supports as well.
Finally, my question is will anybody raise a stink if Michael Moore’s new crock of crap is allowed to play in the theaters come October? What if it’s prohibited from being played the month prior to Super Tuesday? Moore would probably be giddy with joy if his movie is forced out of the theaters because of this law. I do realize that Moore makes movies, which don’t seem to fall under the this new law, but the thought excercise is interesting (to me anyway).