Free Speech is now Freer

Ed Morrissey reports and comments on the Supreme Court’s declaring McCain-Feingold unconstitutional. In short, freedom reigns and Congressional overreach is unconstitutional. He also has the official opinion and thoughts on the matter from CATO and Cal Thomas.

Morrissey makes the same point so many conservatives already know- that transparency is the key to reform:

Will this open the floodgates to corporate and union money in elections? Well, it never really left. The restrictions in the BCRA and other campaign-finance “reforms” just forced the money into less-transparent channels, creating mini-industries of money laundering in politics. This ruling will just allow the money to be seen for what it is, rather than hiding behind PR-spin PAC names and shadowy contribution trails.

The best campaign finance reform is still transparency. If burning a flag in the street is free speech, then so are political contributions, especially when made in the open. If the reformers in Congress want to clean up elections, then force immediate reporting on the Internet of all contributions to all presidential, Senate, and Congressional races, and full weekly financial reports on expenditures. That will do more than all of the speech-restricting, unconstitutional efforts made since Watergate, and make the entire system a lot more honest.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, specifically defined in the Constitution. If you don’t like it, change the Constitution. Otherwise, work for transparency, something that would increase freedom of speech for the average person.

Let’s Not Forget Fundamental Principles On Health Care Reform

From the inimitable Austin Russell:

Ignoring the most basic instincts of competitive politics, modern opposition to any particular political issue usually raises a lack of partisan cooperation as an almost natural first line of defense. While such an approach does credit to American parenting, in that it demonstrates a firm belief in fairness, it does little to defend-and much less to advance- any alternative political philosophy.

The latest and greatest example comes from the alleged opposition to federal healthcare reform or, as it should be more appropriately regarded, federal healthcare takeover. The insistence by both House and Senate leaders that forthcoming deliberations be held behind closed doors has led many in opposition to complain of the unfairness of it all. While the adoption of such a secretive process would assuredly preclude transparency, it has, unfortunately, shifted the focus of many to how deliberations should be conducted, rather then whether such deliberations should be conducted at all.

While defenses should be raised through every conceivable and ethical political tact, basic arguments must not be neglected. Those who oppose a federal takeover of healthcare must not abandon the ship of fundamental principles. Transparent or not?fair or not?the federal government has no business meddling with healthcare in the first place. Let us never forget that.

Media Holding Democrats Accountable on Transparency

Over the last few weeks, there has been talk of not having the traditional “conference” to meld the Senate and House health care reform bills. I laughed off such thoughts, as transparency is something this administration and congressional leaders have been hammered for over the last several months. However, it appears I was wrong. Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) and House Majority Leader Pelosi (D-CA) are setting things up so they will not have to have the conference, and instead get the “conference” bill without a conference.

This is bothersome. However, a number of media sources are doing their job and calling for the Obama administration to open the melding process to the public. (H/T to The Heritage Foundation’s “The Foundry.”) Let’s make our voices heard in support of C-Span’s efforts and make certain Democrats know they should have full transparency in this debate or face the wrath of the voters come November.