The New York Times is determined to stifle free political speech on the internet. In an editorial today, the Times' editors declare:
Now looms a wolfish assault in sheep's clothing: the Online Freedom of Speech Act, which House Republican leaders are suddenly planning to put to a vote on Wednesday so politicians can abuse the Internet as an unregulated outlet for multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns. The bill, put on a fast track in the hope that nobody notices outside the political-industrial complex, would exempt the Internet from the hard-won three-year-old reform law that stopped federal officials from tapping corporations, unions and fat cats for unregulated donations in the quid pro quo marketplace.
Apparently the 1st Amendment applies only to corporations and people who actually own a newspaper, radio or TV station. We certainly wouldn't want the rabble to express their unregulated opinions about a political campaign. The Times' editorial adds a nice partisan touch when it implies that it's just the corrupt Republicans who are pushing for this legislation, when in fact it was first introduced last March by Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
What is it about "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" that the Times and other campaign finance "reformers" don't get?