campaign finace reform = censorship

Back when the public was still debating the wisdom of campaign finace reform, I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine, who claimed that the purpose of state supervision of political adverts was merely to "take the money of out politics." He was convinced it could never set a precedent to justify censorship of political speech.

Well, I should not say he was naive– (he was, but I should not say it)- but I should say he did not appreciate how the law works. The law operates by categories and precedents. If something can be fitted into a given category, the case is treated as all other cases of that category, until and unless an exception can clearly be drawn. The ‘slippery slope" is not some sinister process — it is precedent, which springs from the simple human desire for laws that are understandable, expected, and regular. But is has sinister application if your draft your laws carelessly, or, as here, with malice aforethought.   

I came across this article on Breibart’s ‘Big Hollywood’ blog
 

Last week the United States Supreme Court held oral arguments over a fascinating question:  whether or not the federal government has the authority to decide if a movie/documentary is a form of entertainment free from most broadcast restrictions or if the video is instead a lengthy attack ad – albeit 90 minutes long – against a candidate for federal office subject to the landmark 2002 federal campaign finance law. The BCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) prevents “electioneering communications” within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.  The case is Citizens United v. FEC and Hollywood should be greatly alarmed by its implications.

Read the whole thing:  http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hcooper/2009/04/01/hollywoods-rendezvous-with-government-censorship/#more-93630