George Will: Campaign finance — a ‘reform’ wisely struck down
… The Washington Post, also exempt, says the court’s decision, which overturned a previous ruling upholding restrictions on spending for political speech, shows insufficient “respect for precedent.” Does The Post think the court incorrectly overturned precedents that upheld racial segregation and warrantless wiretaps? Are the only sacrosanct precedents those that abridge (others’) right to speak?
Alarmists say the court’s ruling will mean torrential spending by large for-profit corporations. Anna Burger, secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union — it has spent $20 million on politics in the past five election cycles — says a corporation will “funnel their shareholders’ money straight to a campaign’s coffers.” Wrong. Corporate contributions to candidates’ campaigns remain proscribed.
…Mitchell says the court’s decision primarily liberates nonprofit advocacy groups, such as the Sierra Club, which the FEC fined $28,000 in 2006. The club’s sin was to distribute pamphlets in …