We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Why should they be treated any differently? It boggles the mind. As Taranto notes:
That resolves the conundrum we noted atop this column. Fringe political speech like flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades is so broadly unappealing as to have no effect on "the will of the people." The same is true of nonpolitical forms of expression such as pornography, violent video games and depictions of animal cruelty. (Breyer's willingness to countenance restrictions of the first two has to do with the protection of children, not of the body politic.)
Only mainstream political expression has the potential to thwart the "collective" will, and thus, in the view of Breyer and his fellow dissenters, it alone is deserving of restriction on such a rationale. That stands the First Amendment on its head. Its purpose may be to "make government responsive," as Wilson argued, but the means by which it does so is the limitation of government power and protection of individual freedom.
So only political speech requires adult restrictions? Not commercial speech, not speech of the press and the MSM, not porn, not commercial advertising, just political speech of individuals?
Why not limit those Viagra ad budgets, for the children of course.
Now that's more like it. Examine the underlying assumptions. There is clearly something wrong here. Something fundamental. None of the surface, emotional, fantasy reasons make a lick of sense. Their logic fails immediately since it cannot be applied to anything else. We know this because once it is tried, bedlam and slapstick humor ensues. Ergo, guns being speech and ammo being protected under the first amendment.
They say 2,600 dollars per candidate is fine. And donating to around a dozen or so candidates is cool. But why? Nobody knows because there is no coherent theoretical rationale behind those numbers. Nobody can draw, define and explain the limits. Not without going to wonderland. It's like, Ok you can yell fire in a crowded theatre, but only 17 times, then you have to stop. Erp?
Which means such frivolity should not be tried. Which means the Supreme Court needs to stop trying. Captain Kirk to earth, knock that stuff off.
The overall problem is the size of the federal government. We must return to "City Hall" kind of governance. By constitutional amendment, limit the size of the federal government to 10% of GDP. 5% goes to the Department of Defense and the politician losers that have migrated to D.C. can fight over the rest. The State government must become relevant again.
If you have some kind of war or national emergency, then a supermajority in the House and Senate can get extra funding for only one year at a time. Oh, and it all has to be with a balanced budget.
As the super rich all support the far left (and always have, it's their ticket to leech unlimited riches from the rest of the population after all), it makes perfect sense they want limits on political spending.
But as a percentage of wealth or income, so they can still outspend everyone else...