Chip Taylor

Free speech for me, but not for thee

The editorial writers of the New York Times don't think much of NRA radio. No surprise there. But, come on.

[The NRA] has begun a three-hour daily show on satellite radio to broadcast its anti-gun-control polemics in the name of legitimate news. This is a transparent device designed to circumvent the federal campaign law's strictures on unlimited advocacy at election time.

I guess only editorialists are allowed to publish "polemics in the name of legitimate news" and only newspapers and other "real" news media are to be allowed "unlimited advocacy at election time."

SOME MORE THOUGHTS: It used to be that the campaign finance "reform" debate hinged on whether money equals speech. Finance limit opponents, like me, are comfortable with the idea that money does equate to speech; proponents, like the Times editorialists, pooh-poohed the notion.

But the latest round of campaign finance legislation seems to have less to do with limiting donations than with limiting speech -- in the form of advocacy at election time. So I guess proponents of reform have decided that although money doesn't equal speech (in their view), speech does equal money.

Congress and the courts (and the executive; GWB signed his name to this mess), with a good bit of cheerleading from the press, have carved out special First Amendment territory for "the press" as opposed to mere "speech." Anyone who is confused about what's "press" and what's mere "speech" need only consult those in the "press."

Now, how many people are going to exploit the division by calling anything they don't like improper advocacy?

ALSO: This is my first ever entry in the Beltway Traffic Jam