PDA

View Full Version : Obama OBama's facts wrong on attack of the SCOTUS


petegz28
01-28-2010, 07:28 PM
Gee, the man ran his mouth about something again and was wrong, again.

Obama Flubs Facts on Supreme Court Case, Carl Hulse Glides Right By

Congressional reporter Carl Hulse blew another Obama speech to a joint session of Congress.

In his Thursday “Reporter's Notebook” entry on Obama's State of the Union address, Hulse failed to challenge the false charge Obama made against the Supreme Court regarding foreign political donations in U.S. elections.

Obama said during Wednesday night's State of the Union Address: “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections."

Hulse wrote:


While he was in a scolding mood, the president did not spare the Supreme Court, which is usually part of the pageantry of the State of the Union but not part of the substance.

With Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and other members of the court seated in front, Mr. Obama, a constitutional lawyer, scolded the court for last week reversing “a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections.”

Chief Justice Roberts’s expression did not change, but, as Democratic Senate leaders stood behind him and applauded, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. scowled noticeably and shook his head.

It was a remarkable moment to many. “I have never seen the president go after the Supreme Court,” said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa and a 35-year veteran of Congress.


Hulse failed to correct Obama's misstatement, but his colleague David Kirkpatrick caught it in a fact-check published on the opposite page:


The president appeared to have mischaracterized the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn restrictions on corporate-paid political commercials by suggesting that the decision invited political advertisements by foreign companies, too.

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections,” Mr. Obama said.

“Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a member of the majority in that decision, broke with the justices’ usual decorum to openly dissent. He shook his head no and mouthed the words “not true.”

The majority opinion in the case, Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, specifically disavowed a verdict on the question of foreign companies’ political spending.


Former Times Supreme Court reporter (now nytimes.com columnist) Linda Greenhouse also sided with Justice Alito against Obama in tackling another part of Obama's misstatement:


This time, Justice Alito shook his head as if to rebut the president’s characterization of the Citizens United decision, and seemed to mouth the words “not true.” Indeed, Mr. Obama’s description of the holding of the case was imprecise. He said the court had “reversed a century of law.”

The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries -- as opposed to their political action committees -- on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well -- although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.


(After Republican Rep. Joe Wilson's shouted “you lie” during Obama's September 2009 address to Congress, Hulse fulminated over Wilson's “breach of the protocol,” ignoring his own reporting on Democrats shouting at President George W. Bush on Social Security reform during his 2005 State of the Union.)

http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/articles/2010/20100128025429.aspx

petegz28
01-28-2010, 07:30 PM
It was a remarkable moment to many. “I have never seen the president go after the Supreme Court,” said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa and a 35-year veteran of Congress.

Just another quip for those who though Obama was not doing anything new.

BigRedChief
01-28-2010, 07:31 PM
You are wrong. Justice Stevens cited the 100 year history in his dissenting opinion. Look it up. Heres the official doc.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michi-gan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). Relying largely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law including FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (2007) (WRTL), McConnell v. FEC, 540 U. S. 93 (2003), FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U. S. 146 (2003), FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238 (1986) (MCFL), NRWC, 459 U. S. 197, and California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 453 U. S. 182 (1981).

petegz28
01-28-2010, 07:32 PM
You are wrong. Justice Stevens cited the case in his dissenting opinion. Look it up. Heres the official doc.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Yea, I'm wrong. I wrote the article. :shake:

BigRedChief
01-28-2010, 07:33 PM
Yea, I'm wrong. I wrote the article. :shake:okay, they

petegz28
01-28-2010, 07:35 PM
okay, they

Perhaps you and Justice Stevens should actually read what was overturned and what wasn't?

banyon
01-28-2010, 07:36 PM
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/fr32/speeches/su37fdr.htm

The statute of N.R.A. has been outlawed. The problems have not. They are still with us.

That decent conditions and adequate pay for labor and just return for agriculture can be secured through parallel and simultaneous action by 48 states is a proven impossibility. It is equally impossible to obtain curbs on monopoly, unfair trade practices, and speculation by State action alone. There are those who, sincerely or insincerely, still cling to State action as a theoretical hope. But experience with actualities makes it clear that Federal laws supplementing State laws are needed to help solve the problems which result from modern invention applied in an industrialized nation which conducts its business with scant regard to State lines.

During the past year there has been a growing belief that there is little fault to be found with the Constitution of the United States as it stands today. The vital need is not an alteration of our fundamental law but an increasingly enlightened view with reference to it. Difficulties have grown out of its interpretation; but rightly considered, it can be used as an instrument of progress and not as a device for the prevention of action.

It is worth our while to read and re-read the preamble of the Constitution and the article I thereof which confers the legislative powers upon the Congress of the United States. It is also worth our while to read again the debates in the Constitutional Convention of 150 years ago. From such reading, I obtain the very definite thought the the members of that Convention were fully aware that civilization would raise problems for the proposed new Federal Government, which they themselves could not even surmise; and that it was their definite intent and expectation that a liberal interpretation in the years to come would give the Congress the same relative powers over new national problems as they themselves gave Congress over the national problems of their day.

In presenting to the Convention the first basic draft of the Constitution, Edmund Randolph explained that its purpose "to insert essential principles only, lest the operation of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable which ought to be accommodated to times and events."...

With a better understanding of our purposes, and a more intelligent recognition of our needs as a nation, it is not to be assumed that there will be prolonged failure to bring legislative and judicial action into closer harmony. Means must be found to adapt our legal forms and our judicial interpretation to the actual present national needs of the largest progressive democracy in the modern world.

So, too, the executive branch of the Government must move forward in this task, and, at the same time, provide better management for administrative action of all kinds.

The judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy successful. We do not ask the courts to call nonexistent powers into being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the common good.

BigRedChief
01-28-2010, 07:37 PM
Perhaps you and Justice Stevens should actually read what was overturned and what wasn't?Doesn't matter. I'm not a lawyer and sit on the SCOTUS. Stevens is. You saying you know more about constitutional law than a SC judge?

petegz28
01-28-2010, 07:40 PM
Doesn't matter. I'm not a lawyer and sit on the SCOTUS. Stevens is. You saying you know more about constitutional law than a SC judge?

I'm saying that from what I have read, "a century of law" was not overturned. An the facts seem to support that. Along with the allegation of foreign companies being able to run campaign adds. Then again, no one on the Left bitched when China did it for Bill Clinton.

banyon
01-28-2010, 07:46 PM
I'm saying that from what I have read, "a century of law" was not overturned. An the facts seem to support that. Along with the allegation of foreign companies being able to run campaign adds. Then again, no one on the Left bitched when China did it for Bill Clinton.

Why didn't you read the post with Justice Stevens quote that was from the opinion and joined by 3 other justices?

The point being that calling it "wrong", when it was pretty much an accurate quote from the opinion is just BS.

petegz28
01-28-2010, 07:50 PM
Why didn't you read the post with Justice Stevens quote that was from the opinion and joined by 3 other justices?

The point being that calling it "wrong", when it was pretty much an accurate quote from the opinion is just BS.

So how was the ruling wrong???

banyon
01-28-2010, 07:53 PM
I'm saying that from what I have read, "a century of law" was not overturned. An the facts seem to support that. Along with the allegation of foreign companies being able to run campaign adds. Then again, no one on the Left bitched when China did it for Bill Clinton.

Alito has a very narrow and (IMO) myopic view on the topic.
If there's anything corporations are particularly adept at, it's exploiting legal loopholes.

Basically they said that any company chartered in the U.S. has the same free speech rights as a person, including the right to spend unlimited amounts during a campaign.

Now here's a question I heard someone else pose. Take Citgo Petroleum Corporation. Foreign or Domestic? Well it's chartered here and its controlled by Hugo Chavez. Loophole or not? Does Alito's view take that into account? Is Obama's concern misplaced? I think it's a pretty valid concern. Why do you think it isn't?

patteeu
01-28-2010, 07:53 PM
Here's the deal guys. A century of relatively sparse case law has been overturned or called into question. This is a correction, like overturning Plessy v Ferguson after nearly a century. This is what Stevens is referring to.

The only statute (partially) overturned (afaik) was just a few years old. This is what the articles' author was talking about. It's unclear whether Obama was just being intentionally vague in order to mislead or whether he just doesn't understand the decision. Since he's a serial liar and since he got the part about foreign corps so wrong, Occum's Razor suggests to me that he's playing Americans for suckers.

banyon
01-28-2010, 07:59 PM
So how was the ruling wrong???

I suggest you read the dissent for yourself. There are a myriad of problems, but chief among them are the risk of foreign influence in our elections and the corruptive influence of vastly increased corporate election funding.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

In legal jurisprudence though, there's simply not any compelling reason to treat corporations the same as living breathing human beings for 1st amendment purposes.

petegz28
01-28-2010, 08:00 PM
I suggest you read the dissent for yourself. There are a myriad of problems, but chief among them are the risk of foreign influence in our elections and the corruptive influence of vastly increased corporate election funding.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

In legal jurisprudence though, there's simply not any compelling reason to treat corporations the same as living breathing human beings for 1st amendment purposes.

I may or may not disagree. But the fact is, Obama had his facts wrong.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 08:00 PM
Minor correction: Plessy was overturned after just under 60 years.

banyon
01-28-2010, 08:01 PM
I may or may not disagree. But the fact is, Obama had his facts wrong.

Which fact was wrong?

patteeu
01-28-2010, 08:03 PM
I suggest you read the dissent for yourself. There are a myriad of problems, but chief among them are the risk of foreign influence in our elections and the corruptive influence of vastly increased corporate election funding.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

In legal jurisprudence though, there's simply not any compelling reason to treat corporations the same as living breathing human beings for 1st amendment purposes.

What is the difference between a corporation paying for an ad directly out of it's treasury and the same corporation paying a person enough to pay for the ad out of that person's personal account?

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 08:04 PM
People talk about how rare it was for Obama to take on the SCOTUS decision but it is also rare for the court to ask for the parties to return for a rare re-argument of the case — with a much broader focus.
Basically they already heard the arguments, Roberts didn't like the outcome so he wanted to change it.

petegz28
01-28-2010, 08:05 PM
People talk about how rare it was for Obama to take on the SCOTUS decision but it is also rare for the court to ask for the parties to return for a rare re-argument of the case — with a much broader focus.
Basically they already heard the arguments, Roberts didn't like the outcome so he wanted to change it.


:spock:

banyon
01-28-2010, 08:06 PM
I would guess that no one is interesting in answering this question, since it defeats the partisan witchhunt over the quote:

Now here's a question I heard someone else pose. Take Citgo Petroleum Corporation. Foreign or Domestic? Well it's chartered here and its controlled by Hugo Chavez. Loophole or not? Does Alito's view take that into account? Is Obama's concern misplaced? I think it's a pretty valid concern. Why do you think it isn't?

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 08:09 PM
:spock:

Are you confused? The SC already heard the arguments. Roberts asked them to come back and re-litgate with a much broader focus. This is a very rare occurrence which means they probably took a vote and he lost.

petegz28
01-28-2010, 08:10 PM
Are you confused? The SC already heard the arguments. Roberts asked them to come back and re-litgate with a much broader focus. This is a very rare occurrence which means they probably took a vote and he lost.

Hopefully Roe v. Wade is next! :evil:

BigRedChief
01-28-2010, 08:11 PM
Minor correction: Plessy was overturned after just under 60 years.you were trying to tell me over the last few days the decision was from only since 1990. :shake:

banyon
01-28-2010, 08:12 PM
What is the difference between a corporation paying for an ad directly out of it's treasury and the same corporation paying a person enough to pay for the ad out of that person's personal account?

Theoretically: One involves a real person who should have political speech rights. The other does not.

Practically: however, because of the campaign finance "soft money" loophole, that means that corporations can run as many ads as they want to, with unlimited funds. Individuals are not in that position to run multimedia campaigns for their issue concerns.

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 08:12 PM
Hopefully Roe v. Wade is next! :evil:

that is all we need.

Direckshun
01-28-2010, 08:13 PM
It's unclear whether Obama was just being intentionally vague in order to mislead or whether he just doesn't understand the decision.

He said it's overturned a century of law.

You said in your reply that he overturned a century of case law. Which is law.

So the answer would appear to be neither that he was vague or that he didn't understand the decision.

It's far more likely a hack fired a spitball in Obama's direction knowing that somebody somewhere would blindly copy & paste it onto a forum.

Answer this post, pat or pete:

Now here's a question I heard someone else pose. Take Citgo Petroleum Corporation. Foreign or Domestic? Well it's chartered here and its controlled by Hugo Chavez. Loophole or not? Does Alito's view take that into account? Is Obama's concern misplaced? I think it's a pretty valid concern. Why do you think it isn't?

patteeu
01-28-2010, 08:15 PM
you were trying to tell me over the last few days the decision was from only since 1990. :shake:

It is. I don't know exactly what old precedents were called into question, but the specific activity that was restored to legality by this decision was outlawed by a law that's only been on the books for a few years.

It invites legal challenges of other types but all the old laws that have been on the books for 100 years are still there and the outcomes of challenges aren't necessarily pre-determined.

petegz28
01-28-2010, 08:16 PM
Theoretically: One involves a real person who should have political speech rights. The other does not.

Practically: however, because of the campaign finance "soft money" loophole, that means that corporations can run as many ads as they want to, with unlimited funds. Individuals are not in that position to run multimedia campaigns for their issue concerns.

What is the difference of a Corporation or Union running an add and a newspaper or talk show running puff pieces?

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 08:17 PM
I would guess that no one is interesting in answering this question, since it defeats the partisan witchhunt over the quote:

Watching O'Reilly tonight Megan Kelly said that subsidiaries still can't run ads or donate

BigRedChief
01-28-2010, 08:20 PM
It is. I don't know exactly what old precedents were called into question, but the specific activity that was restored to legality by this decision was outlawed by a law that's only been on the books for a few years.

It invites legal challenges of other types but all the old laws that have been on the books for 100 years are still there and the outcomes of challenges aren't necessarily pre-determined.
Yeah well I'm not a lawyer but the dissenting opinion in the actuial case cites 100 years of precedent. So I was friggin right. :harumph:

Damn activist judges

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 08:20 PM
Then again

Bradley Smith, a former Federal Election Commission chairman who supports rolling back campaign finance law, has argued that laws already on the books that prevent non-U.S. citizens from giving to U.S. campaigns already cover overseas corporations.

But Nathaniel Persily, a professor of law and political science at Columbia University said the decision doesn't make any distinction between U.S.-chartered and overseas corporations, effectively opening the door to money from overseas.

"The court decision itself liberated all corporations that were prevented from running ads in elections," Persily said. "So foreign corporations were prohibited beforehand, and just like all other corporations, they were liberated by this decision."
But the ruling also leaves the door open for Congress to set new restrictions.

"The question is, how much foreign ownership does a corporation have to have before you can limit its expenditures?" Persily told CNN. After last week's decision, "It's up to Congress to delineate which corporations might be owned by foreign interests to a sufficient amount that they can be regulated."

patteeu
01-28-2010, 08:22 PM
Are you confused? The SC already heard the arguments. Roberts asked them to come back and re-litgate with a much broader focus. This is a very rare occurrence which means they probably took a vote and he lost.

I don't think that's a logical conclusion at all. If I were guessing, I'd say that their deliberations raised issues that suggested the majority was willing to go further than the scope of the arguments but in the interest of fairness to the parties they felt it was important to give both sides the chance to speak on the issue.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 08:27 PM
Theoretically: One involves a real person who should have political speech rights. The other does not.

Practically: however, because of the campaign finance "soft money" loophole, that means that corporations can run as many ads as they want to, with unlimited funds. Individuals are not in that position to run multimedia campaigns for their issue concerns.

Why would an individual not be in a position to do so?

Saul Good
01-28-2010, 08:31 PM
Why would an individual not be in a position to do so?

Because George Soros gets all of the free press he wants and thus has no reason to pay for it.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 08:58 PM
Persons or people are mentioned in the Infringing speech part of the first Amendment—just that the govt can't do it.

banyon
01-28-2010, 08:58 PM
Why would an individual not be in a position to do so?

Because of the vast differences between the money at the disposal of corporations versus an individual (I mean unless we are limiting ourselves to Bill Gates and the Sultan of Brunei or something) and the amount of money it costs to run advertising campaigns.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 08:59 PM
Damn activist judges
The dissenters were the activist judges. Precedent is sometimes wrong. Precedent is used by lawyers who can't apply the facts of a case to words used in the law. It's a crutch sometimes.

banyon
01-28-2010, 09:02 PM
Persons or people are mentioned in the Infringing speech part of the first Amendment—just that the govt can't do it.

Really? Does it mention corporations which didn't really even exist in their current form at the time of the Amendment?

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 09:03 PM
Huh?

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 09:04 PM
O.M.G. I can't stop laughing!!! ROFL ROFL ROFL :D:D:)

banyon
01-28-2010, 09:09 PM
Watching O'Reilly tonight Megan Kelly said that subsidiaries still can't run ads or donate

What was her reason for saying that if you know?

EDIT: Nevermind I watched it. It is a shill commentary that doesn't consider legal loopholes that corporations most certainly will.

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 09:23 PM
What was her reason for saying that if you know?

EDIT: Nevermind I watched it. It is a shill commentary that doesn't consider legal loopholes that corporations most certainly will.

Good because I couldn't really remember other than there is already a law or something like that.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 10:19 PM
Because of the vast differences between the money at the disposal of corporations versus an individual (I mean unless we are limiting ourselves to Bill Gates and the Sultan of Brunei or something) and the amount of money it costs to run advertising campaigns.

In the hypothetical I laid out, we are indeed limiting ourselves to individuals who have the resources to fund the same ads the corporation could fund because the corporation is paying them to do it. Let's just say it's the CEO of megacorp who earns $100 gazzilion for performing chief executive duties and for speaking out on behalf of the company's interests through political ads. The point is that it's not the corporation speaking, it's the people who make up the corporation through the mechanism of their management team. I can't think of a single good reason for banning corporations from doing what PACs can do and I can't think of a reasonable argument for curtailing the political speech of the collective group of shareholders of these corporations.

ChiefaRoo
01-28-2010, 10:28 PM
Get over it. They ruled, they're the third branch of Govt. It's over. Law of the land. Just the way the founders designed it.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 11:08 PM
You are wrong. Justice Stevens cited the 100 year history in his dissenting opinion. Look it up. Heres the official doc.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michi-gan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). Relying largely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law including FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (2007) (WRTL), McConnell v. FEC, 540 U. S. 93 (2003), FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U. S. 146 (2003), FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238 (1986) (MCFL), NRWC, 459 U. S. 197, and California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 453 U. S. 182 (1981).

Here's the deal guys. A century of relatively sparse case law has been overturned or called into question. This is a correction, like overturning Plessy v Ferguson after nearly a century. This is what Stevens is referring to.

The only statute (partially) overturned (afaik) was just a few years old. This is what the articles' author was talking about. It's unclear whether Obama was just being intentionally vague in order to mislead or whether he just doesn't understand the decision. Since he's a serial liar and since he got the part about foreign corps so wrong, Occum's Razor suggests to me that he's playing Americans for suckers.

Upon further review (actually upon first review of what Stevens actually wrote), it's apparent that the Justice Stevens quote mentioning 100 years of history has misled us. I was right that the case law was sparse but I was wrong about it actually going back 100 years.

Justice Stevens comes up with his bogus 100 year time period by hearkening back to a statute known as the Tillman Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tillman_Act_of_1907). The Tillman Act was a law that attempted to limit the ability of corporations to donate funds to campaigns. It was never overturned by this or any other SCOTUS decision. It became outdated when newer, more effectively enforceable statutes came into existence. To this day, corporate donations to campaigns remain limited.

Fast forward to 1982. In a case called FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., the court accepts the judgment of Congress that corporations require special regulation as found in Tillman. In a string of other cases during the 80s and subsequent years, the court speaks approvingly of this type of Congressional regulation.

So the truth is that only about 28 years of case law is affected by this ruling, not the 100 that Stevens' quote seemed to suggest.

Oh, and I've heard several people claim that corporations didn't even exist when the 1st amendment was ratified. That's not true. Justice Scalia does a good job of destroying the dissent's fake-original-intent arguments on this topic in his concurrence.

The Mad Crapper
01-29-2010, 06:07 AM
Alito has a very narrow and (IMO) myopic view on the topic.


As opposed to B.O. and his stooges.

ROFL

BucEyedPea
01-29-2010, 08:30 AM
With Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and other members of the court seated in front, Mr. Obama, a constitutional lawyer, scolded the court for last week reversing “a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections.”

Chief Justice Roberts’s expression did not change, but, as Democratic Senate leaders stood behind him and applauded, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. scowled noticeably and shook his head.
The ruling "specifically excludes foreign nationals and foreign-owned corporations from its ruling." —Judge Napolitano

This is why Alito was making a face during the SOTU address.

I haven't read the whole thread so don't know if this was covered or not.

Now ALL PERSONS in groups or individually have free speech regardless of wealth. Discrimination regarding speech on the basis of wealth is unlawful. Imagine that, the left, the bastion of anti-discrimination, actually advocating discrimination. It's okay if it's their kind of discrimination as in unequal laws for equal results.
Egalitarianism.

Finally an un-American un-Constitutional precedent was overturned.

FishingRod
01-29-2010, 10:05 AM
I have no doubt that whenever an opening is created, someone or some group of people will find a way to use it in a manner that is self serving and not in the overall best interests of society as a whole. Much like it being legal for Illinois Nazis to march and protest. But just like that, I believe it best to error on the side of freedom of speech and to error against the side of Government control over our daily lives. I would rather risk the fact that my fellow citizens may not have the intellectual ability discern the truth about our political candidates, than to allow the Government to ban advertisements, politically motivated slanted documentaries and eventually books. This was a rare example of the Supreme Court letting the other branches know they had overstepped their authority regardless if their intentions were good or less than pure.