McCain-Feingold to face new and improved Supreme Court

Three years ago, five Supreme Court justices ruled that the First Amendment was null and void if people wanted to criticize politicians during election season. Justices Stevens and O'Connor wrote the opinion.

The good news? O'Connor has been replaced by free speech champion Samuel Alito. And the new and improved Supreme Court has agreed to hear a new challenge to the despicable McCain-Feingold Anti-Free-Speech and Incumbent Protection Act:

The Supreme Court set the stage Friday for striking down a part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that bars the broadcast of corporate and union-funded ads just before an election.

Three years ago, the justices narrowly upheld McCain-Feingold and its rule against corporate-funded broadcast ads, which was adopted to prevent powerful interests from using their money to sway elections in the final weeks of a campaign. Now-retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor cast a deciding fifth vote in favor of the law.

Friday, the justices announced they will hear a free-speech challenge to this rule in April, and this time decide the issue before a court that is likely to be more skeptical of laws that restrict election-related spending.

While advocates of campaign funding laws say they are trying to limit the influence of big money in politics, critics of these measures say they unconstitutionally restrict persons and groups from voicing their political views.

To refresh your memory, the First Amendment reads, in its entirety:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or ofthe press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What is so hard to understand about that?