Regarding Henry Luce, I think that his reaction to the current political perspective at Time magazine would likely be to spin in his grave (a good thing, since it would aerate the soil).
My very limited exposure to Time in recent years suggests it spins news from at least a mildly left-wing world view; however I’m not in the best position to judge, since I avoid it as a desperately trend-seeking, palpitating pile of poop, much like Newsweek, the rag that used to brag about separating fact from opinion.
To address other points about wealth, political ideology and zeal for campaign reform, I’d argue that politicians across the political spectrum see campaign finance reform as a threat to free speech, basically because they’re so used to talking with their mouths full.
And it’s easy for some wealthy liberals to be “generous” on social policy because they know that their wealth and power will insulate them and their families from the effects.
Sua – Your responses all look reasonable in principle. I suppose the real debate should involve the magnitudes. In particular, on #6, to prohibit individuals or their organizaitons from running political ads within 60 days of an election would be a major, major infringement of free speech, in my opinion. My F of S is just as important as the media’s F of S. This provision is just as ridiculous as prohibiting newspapers from running political editorials within 60 days of an election! That’s the exact period when we SHOULD be sharing our opinions!
Ultimately, the argument for CFR is that the current system is not totally fair and that some rich or powerful groups get advantages. I agree. The argument against CFR is that a new law won’t fix the problem, but it will reduce civil liberties.
In particular, note that today’s system was yesterday’s “campaign reform,” when the Democrats enacted it 20 or 30 years ago. That reform didn’t work. Special interests found legal, semi-legal and illegal ways to get money to politicians. We still have a flawed system, but the various regulations have made it more difficult for a political amateur to mount a campaign.
If the Senate version of M-F becomes law, I expect that special interests will again have their way, but we citizens will experience a permanent reduction of freedom of speech.
In truth, I am horrified that a majority of Senators voted for this bill. No doubt they expect the Supreme Court to overrule the worst aspects. But, each Senator took a vow to uphold the Constitution. IMHO they ignored their oath.
Whether or not this bill passes, we now know that Freedom of Speech has lost support in America.
December - I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I think both of us have put out pretty good arguments for our sides, and I doubt either of us is going to budge. It’s been fun, though.
One final point - you are absolutely correct concerning the political ads ban. That this amendment was passed, as in other cases were blatantly unconstitutional laws were enacted by Congress, is truly a disgrace. The courts will eliminate the ban, but that is not their appropriate job - Congress should not be passing laws, and relying upon the Supremes to do the right thing, just to score points.
Sua