Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Hush Money

Reason Staff | 12.10.2003 6:52 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

New at Reason: Even with the soft money ban, people are still acting like the First Amendment gives them the right to speak out on political issues. How can we put a stop to that? Julian Sanchez proposes a solution.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Nuke Solution

Reason Staff
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (16)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Jason   22 years ago

    There are lots of comments about "chill winds blowing" that come to mind following this ruling. Unfortunately, I don't expect Tim Robbins to deliver any of them.

    Quite a shame.

  2. digamma   22 years ago

    Didn't EVERYBODY who follows First Amendment law say the ban on ads mentioning a candidate would be overturned?

    I'm going to wake up tomorrow morning (my birthday) and this decision will have been a bad dream.

  3. R. C. Dean   22 years ago

    Pornographic issue ads! Talk about your, umm, loopholes.

  4. excremental   22 years ago

    You can't spell FECAL without F-E-C-A.

  5. Jason Ligon   22 years ago

    Good piece, Julian. I hate them all.

  6. digamma   22 years ago

    I'm awake. The decision stands. I'm a year older, and a lot less free.

  7. richard   22 years ago

    Check out Thomas' scathing dissent, and Scalia's, and Rehnquist's, and Kennedy's. Atrocious day for all Americans. Wednesday December 10th should be known forever as the day the Supreme Court caved to knee-jerk reactionism...it is a very dark and sad day.

  8. rst   22 years ago

    As much as I agree with the ban on soft money, the ban on candidate vs. issue ads close to the election is ridiculous. I think the Supreme Court is emphasizing a strict interpretation of "issue", but simultaneously discarding any notion of it being an "advertisement".

    This makes me think twice about the Metro-Change The Climate flap. Decisions like this heartily reinforce the notion that the Constitution is merely a dried-out piece of paper whose only relevance is as an historical referent. The preponderance of precedent and resultant case law make it a trivial exercise for the justices to do an end run around just about any amendment or article they desire, given some characteristic that can be bullshitted enough into credible significance.

    I hope the NRA gets their "news" channel, just to stick it right in the dems craw. Kerry had better act quickly to get rid of it, if only for the millions of Americans who can't operate their remote control to change the fucking television station.

  9. Citizen   22 years ago

    Julian, nice write up. I appreciate the clear explanation of the different donation type and terms and the loopholes.

    Hopefully this will get appealled to the ... oh wait, well at least we can vent our frustration by not voting for these clowns next time they're up for election ... ahh, foiled again!

  10. StMack   22 years ago

    Its the Death of the Republic

    From the legislative branch that passed the act, to the executive branch where the measure was welcomed and signed into law, to the judicial branch where it was upheld by the ruling of 5 individuals, government has placed itself above the law. Its assumption of the authority to abridge our rights as individuals has voided the concept of rights and left us with a few tenuous freedoms that we will enjoy as long as they do not conflict with a compelling interest of the state. The Constitution has become functionally irrelevant and the rule of law has been deposed by the rule of man.

  11. Larry   22 years ago

    Once we get a Second Amendment case to the Supreme Court...

    Uh. Never mind.

  12. Karl   22 years ago

    begin{paranoid rant}
    Methinks we get closer and closer to third box of the 'freedom' boxes with every passing day legislative, executive, and judicial branches are in session...
    end{paranoid rant}

    Sigh....

    -Karl

  13. Russ D   22 years ago

    Excellent writing and reasoning, Julian.

  14. Abu Hamza   22 years ago

    That was a super column by Sanchez.

    But I have to admit I haven't read the McCain Feingold law, I barely remember Buckley v Valeo, I don't know shit about the FEC, and I haven't read the latest opinion yet. But, with those qualifications set out, I declare that I am against the court's ruling basically for the reasons that Julian says in his/her column. And why did W sign this into law? He's done some things that make me wonder who he's looking out for other than W. Was this a "Democrat" bill notwithstanding McCain's name in the bill's title?

    I think the Supreme Court has already implemented a de facto abortion exception to the free speech clause, what with its opinions upholding "bubble zone" no-free-speech zones in Hill v. Colorado, and upholding no-free-speech laws in residential neighborhoods, and its opinion upholding the FACE statute (no speech outside of abortion clinics).

    Yet the court gives amazingly robust free speech protection to pornography.

    And now the court has given a miserly interpretation of the free speech clause on the most important speech possible: political speech trying to influence who gets elected. It's astonishing.

    That is all.

  15. Chuck   22 years ago

    "Yet the court gives amazingly robust free speech protection to pornography."

    That's the new workaround! Pornographic issue ads!
    Mary Carey's career in politics may not be over quite yet...

  16. D Lusional   22 years ago

    I thought I was depressed about this before reading your Hold The Mayo post. Thanks StMack for bringing me down a little more.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Trump Wants Harvard To Hand Over Info on Over 10,000 International Students

Autumn Billings | 7.10.2025 5:18 PM

The People Who Wrecked N.Y. Schools Love Zohran Mamdani

Matt Welch | 7.10.2025 5:03 PM

The Department of Homeland Security Says Trump's Immigration Enforcers Are on a Mission From God

Jacob Sullum | 7.10.2025 3:15 PM

Trump's 50 Percent Copper Tariff Will Drive Up Prices for Tech, Homes, Military Equipment, and More

Eric Boehm | 7.10.2025 2:30 PM

Did the Secret Service Surveil James Comey Without a Warrant After '86 47' Post?

Joe Lancaster | 7.10.2025 2:00 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!