O Frabjous Day! Callooh! Callay!

It's time to celebrate. The First Amendment has been let loose. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, has wiped away many of the limits on freedom of speech that existed under the rubric of "campaign finance reform." I'm only troubled by the closeness of the decision. If Obama gets to replace just one of those Justices in the majority, we'll probably once again have to kiss this freedom goodbye.

I've always been bothered by the opposition of so many "liberal" judges on this issue. I sort of understand why so many on the left support these limits to freedom of speech (and even try to deny this is about freedom of speech). Many believe it'll hurt them politically because they think the money is more likely to support the right, and some just believe it's good to have more government control in general. There may be other reasons for their opposition, but these are the factors that explain why it's become a partisan issue. Look at Obama pledging to accept public financing, then tossing that aside when he realized he could get more money other ways. Of course it works in the other direction--if Republicans believed all that money would be flowing to speech on behalf of Democrats, they'd support limits.

But judges should be better than that, and more objective. Left or right, this is a pretty clear limiting of the power to express political opinions during elections--what could be more central to the mission of the First Amendment?

Already there are hundreds of denunciations. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but even the author of the allegedly neutral New York Times article I linked seems to barely hold in his bitterness.

All I can say to those who are angry or fearful is trust me, it's not so bad. Letting everyone speak is a good thing. It's sure better than letting the government decide who can speak, and how much. You think corporations will overwhelm the debate? Let 'em try. Even if they (and their shareholders) want to, it's not so easy. It might even create an issue to run on--my opponent is the favorite candidate of the fat cats and so on.

The New York Times is a corporation and it can speak as much as it wants. Why not let others?