Supreme Court ruling misunderstood

    85
    print

    I’d like to again respond to Michael Lauck’s column, this time called “Corporations and unions should have voice heard through ads.” Like FOX News, he seems to be light on facts and heavy on pointless rhetoric. At issue here is that he characterizes liberals as the ones trying to expand government to stomp on free speech. Yet he fails to see just how bipartisan this issue really is. John McCain, the Republican and conservative front runner for the presidential election of 2008, was one of the main authors of the McCain-Feingold Act. It’s strange that he would miss this simple fact, with McCain’s name being on the bill. That is unless maybe he considers McCain a liberal, which of course would be hard to prove by any measurement.

    To further dispute Lauck, he continues by saying that President Barack Obama and our government think Americans are idiots while Obama has been one of the most naive presidents of our time by continuing to believe that people will see reason. Yet the very next session of Congress, the Republicans try to filibuster the nominee for solicitor general at the Department of Labor (for bogus reasons), which is not a high ranking position by any means. FOX News also continues to be one of the most watched “news” networks (if you could even call it that) in America despite it being an opinion network. The bottom line is that the facts show that Americans respond to fear, something the Bush administration has taught us well.

    Given the above, it is clear that this is a blow to our already crippled government. The author even recognizes that special interests already dominate the government. While I’m not saying the Supreme Court is wrong, this ruling will only continue to make the problem worse. The author is at least correct in that freedom of speech should not be limited, but he can’t seem to see the real long-term implications this ruling has. He continues to complain about liberals without actually offering a solution to a problem he recognizes. Here’s at least one that I’m sure he wouldn’t like: Don’t allow any congressman to vote on an issue if he’s received substantial support from stakeholders that the legislation would affect. At least if you add this to the bylaws of the House, the Supreme Court couldn’t overturn it.

    Thomas Guidry is a 2007 graduate in computer information science from Lafayette, La.