Quin, you seem to focus on the soft money ban in evaluating
BCRA's constitutionality. The ban on issue ads near the election is
still part of its regime, and it seems perfectly legitimate to
argue that, as a whole, BCRA is speech-stifling, and
incumbent-protecting.
Your sunshine theory is interesting, but implausible. If
sunshine were the driving force behind the third-party issue ads
ban, then donor disclosure would suffice. Let me know what Sen.
McCain thinks about replacing the issue ad ban with donor
disclosure.
These folks take seriously the First Amendment's prohibition on
Congress making a law that abridges free speech, and object to the
idea that third-party issue ads are somehow akin to yelling "fire"
in a crowded theater (as a harm meriting the abridgement of free
speech). Dismissing these free-speech arguments as frivolous, or
even as unworthy of a spirited discussion, will neither allay their
concerns about the future of the First Amendment nor help convince
them to endorse candidates who supported campaign finance
reform.
topics:
Constitution, Law