|
In
defense of column, for protection of Constitution An editorial appeared in this paper Tuesday that attacked me and an editorial of mine that appeared last Thursday. Mr. Tim Dragga stated that I am completely unfamiliar with any Supreme Court precedent because I asserted that the Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform Bill violated the First Amendment. May I draw your attention to Roth v. United States in which the Supreme Court says, “Contribution and expenditure limitations operate in an area of the most fundamental First Amendment activities. Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution. The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order ‘to assure (the) unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.’” In FEC v. National Conservative PAC the U.S. Supreme Court states that, “A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate’s increasing dependence on television, radio and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.” Mr. Dragga stresses over and over that “Money isn’t speech,” and taking that statement at face value, I would agree with him. However, in the context of the issue at hand, the money is used to purchase the media resources required to utilize free speech (airtime costs money). The Supreme Court disagrees with this. Mr. Dragga goes on in his editorial to imply that the Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Rifle Association, Sierra Club and American Association for Retired Persons (all of which I mentioned in my previous editorial), are Fortune 500 companies that are handed down through inheritance. What? Last I have heard, these are non-profit corporations that exist for the purpose of protecting the rights of their members from the legislations of our government. Mr. Dragga also implies that a person must be wealthy to be a member of these organizations. I am a member of four organizations of the caliber of those mentioned above, and I am in no way wealthy. He also states that, “Politicians wouldn’t pay much attention to average citizens when special interest groups… can run third party attack ads.” Once again I am not sure where he gets his information and why he thinks that their opinions are “attack ads,” but special interest groups are average citizens who banded together to express their political opinions, a right that, once again, is protected by the First Amendment. Mr. Dragga fills his editorial with other rhetoric and personal criticisms that are so off the wall and without merit that they are not worth commenting further about. He may not think that the Constitution of the United States is worth protecting, but hundreds of thousands of men and women in uniform and the more than one million of them who died protecting it think that it is. So do I. It is great that we live in a country that allows Mr. Dragga to have his opinion and be able to express it in print without the fear of persecution. It is not too late to contact your U.S. senator and ensure that your right to express yourself politically is preserved as well. God Bless the United States of America. Tom
Daniels is a sophomore education major from Fort Worth. |
|
|
TCU Daily Skiff © 2002 |
||