A momentous decision is about to be made by the US Supreme Court soon, regarding whether campaign finance laws that restrict spending by corporations and unions should be loosened, which would allow much more negative advertising in political campaigns, including the upcoming midterm congressional elections in November 2010.
Supporters of loosening campaign finance laws argue that it is a question of freedom of speech. The opposite view is that such a change would encourage undue influence in a negative way by powerful groups which have unlimited funds that could distort the truth and promote manipulation of voters by very negative campaign commercials and advertising.
It is clear to me that we should not want more corporate and union influence which would undermine political campaigns which are already too negative, tending to turn off voters from participating and making them feel that the power of money matters more than them.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will not be a partner in the undermining of American democracy, and will prevent the distortion of our system by wealthy special interests. This is not an issue of freedom of speech, but rather of the right of the American people to avoid demagogic methods used by pressure groups which care very little about anything other than their own special interests!
I agree with you that removing these campaign finance laws may interfere with our democratic process, but I disagree that this is not an issue of freedom of speech.
I think that what you are saying is that our right to a democracy supersedes our right to free speech. What if the government decides that blogging negatively against a politician interferes with democracy? Should the government have the power to stop political blogging in order to maintain democracy? Should the government make it illegal to blog or write about communism, because this may interfere with democracy?
I don’t like the idea that special interest groups and corporations will have more control over our democratic process and therefore out government, but I think it is more dangerous for our government to decide when we can or cannot express our opinions.