FREE SPEACH=FREE ELECTIONS

The New York Times has an editorial to day and they are shocked! shocked! to find that people are spending money on elections. The Times brings up the specter of “soft money” and how the government needs to do something, anything to regulate the free speech of regular citizens, I mean

“…those large, unregulated and politically destructive donations…”

The Times went as far as to call “soft money” a:

“…loophole that scandalized the nation.”

“Scandalized the nation”? What are they talking about? Look, free speech is free speech and that includes donating money to groups that are getting your message out - it’s not a scandal. Perhaps, instead of trying to throw law after law at campaign donations and free speech, maybe we should be trying to repeal all of the dumb campaign finance laws. Let the people give candidates however much money they want to and let them buy advertising to tell their side of issues and views on candidates. No more soft money problems to keep the New York Times editors awake at night.

The Times, like all media outlets, want to have a monopoly on what regular people can hear about candidates and their positions, past comments, etc. and the best way to do that is get terrible laws like the McCain-Feingold bill passed and have the FEC regulate everything. They want nothing to do with logic because they really don’t want to have to share the spotlight with anyone who might not agree with their liberal views.