A Stitch in Haste

Not a major event, but disappointing nonetheless:

Federal election regulators refused to ease limits on political advertising Tuesday, blocking an effort to let interest groups run radio and television ads mentioning elected officials within weeks of an election.

The Federal Election Commission voted 3-3 on a proposal that would have allowed such ads as long as they addressed public policy issues and did not promote, support, oppose or attack a sitting member of Congress. Supporters of the change said they wanted to strike a balance between campaign ad restrictions and constitutional free speech guarantees.

Since the proposal was a rule change, the 3-3 tie meant defeat.

So the schizophrenia that is campaign finance law stays as schizophrenic as ever. A dollar spent by me receives less constitutional protection than a dollar spent by a Member of Congress. The 2,001st dollar spent by me receives less constitutional protection than the 2,000th dollar. A dollar to be spent on the 60th day before an election receives less constitutional protection than a dollar to be spent on the 61st day before an election. A dollar spent by me using my blogonym receives less constitutional protection than a dollar spent by me using my real name. A dollar spent opposing a bigot politician receives less constitutional protection than a dollar spent opposing a bigot amendment.

That simply cannot be right. None of it makes any sense at all.

But, heck, it's just the First Amendment. No big deal, right?

"I'm Kip and I approved this blogpost..."