Reply #4: So in other words...

[hwmnbn]

The First Amendment does not guarantee anyone a particular forum for their speech at a "non-prohibitive" cost.

You're claiming that as long as you can afford the cost, the First Amendment guarantees you a forum to exercise your free speech. People with unlimited resources can saturate the media with their messages. People without resources have to settle for their soapbox in the park. Am I understanding you correctly? In your opinion, was this the original intent of the First Amendment?

the ruling really changes nothing, since political advertising has always been limited by a candidate's or a party's financial resources.

The ruling changes EVERYTHING or else it wouldn't be such a big deal. Now candidates have unlimited advertising potential bankrolled by private corporate concerns in direct opposition and at the expense of the public interest. What was once regulated by albeit weak election financing laws has now been deregulated completely.

If you think deregulating the banking industry was a good idea, I can see why you'd love deregulating election financing. IMO, it's potentially a bigger disaster in the making.


I myself prefer to judge a politician's policies on their merit, not on his advertising budget. I contend that is a superior way to judge and choose our representatives. After this ruling, I will not hear as many policy alternatives from which to choose. That's the danger here.