Another link in the chain

DallasBlog.com | Trey Garrison:

“I'm not going to state an editorial position, but I must pose a question: If we all agree that political speech more than any other variety is what the First Amendment is meant to protect, how is it even possible we're at a place where we're squabbling over how speech in this medium should be restricted, but not in that medium, and only if you're spending less than X amount of dollars, and so on? I really just don't get it. Props to Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, but how has it come to this?”

Ed Cognoski responds:

It has come to this because some Americans perceived abuses in campaign financing in the past. And some Americans who disagreed are now attempting to chisel away at the reforms put in place to stop the abuses. It's that simple.

The Constitution does protect free speech. So, what regulators are attempting to control is money, not speech. Splitting hairs? Sure. That's what the Constitution and legal matters in general have been about for as long as people have decided to have governments of laws, not of men. If you don't get that, you won't get the Constitution or campaign finance reform.

P.S. Mr Garrison states he isn't taking a position, then gives props to Rep. Hensarling. So much for balanced reporting.