Radley Balko at the Agitator poses this question to the “left.”
Because most leftists I think would simultaneously oppose conservative efforts to impose "decency" on the country (correctly, I believe), but also support an election system that severely limits the amount of money a candidate can spend on campaign commercials (incorrectly). And that suggests they believe the First Amendment affords more protection for indecent content than it does for political content.
I don’t get his logic. The first imposes a subjective standard on the content of speech, limiting what can be said or shown. The second merely imposes a limit to how many times you can bombard the public with the same message – not the language of the message. It seems to me that this in effect merely levels the playing field and affords more protection for all political speech.
The current system favors the entrenched and does more to suppress alternative voices by merely drowning them out with a paid media blitz. All too often the candidate with the most money wins. This is why we can’t get viable “third party” candidates. They can’t afford to buy enough visibility to mount an effective challenge to the powers that be. Not to mention only the “Big Two” candidates get any appreciable attention gratis, from the media.
Perhaps Radley could explain to this leftie why giving alternative candidates a fighting chance to be equally heard abridges the First Amendment?