If Congress tried to limit spending by newspapers, the courts would reject such meddling as a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Likewise if Congress tried to accomplish its goal indirectly by limiting the amount of money newspapers receive from advertisers. Yet the same sort of distinction supposedly justifies federal limits on campaign contributions, the subject of a case the Supreme Court heard in October. McCutcheon v. FEC gives the Court an opportunity to reconsider an illogical constitutional line it drew nearly four decades ago. Jacob Sullum argues that the Supreme Court should abandon the dubious distinction between campaign spending and campaign contributions.
A Professor Tried To End a Flirty Email Exchange With a Young Woman. Then She Threatened to Blackmail Him.
When the grad student threatened to publicize their embarrassing correspondence, he reported her. But the university decided he was the villain.
Teen activists are righteously angry—but righteous anger does not produce sound public policy.
The Inspector General Report Is a Huge Blow to the FBI's Credibility. Why Is It Being Treated Like Vindication?
The government's surveillance of Carter Page might not have been improperly motivated, but it was still seriously flawed.
Plus: the foundations bankrolling bad tech policy, they is the word of the year, and more...