Scrat wrote:And imagine a scenario wherein some very bad information came to light about Bush, for instance, within that 6-week blackout period. Those supporting the Democrat candidate would not be allowed to bring any attention to the issue.
I'm doubtful about the court's decision myself, too, but this I think is obviously not true.
You wouldnt be allowed "to bring any attention to the issue" anymore *with TV ads*. (And PDiddie will probably be able to tell whether this even concerns all ads or just ads fincanced in certain ways.)
You would still be able to get the word out through any of the other campaigning ways that have shaped politics throughout history. You can write letters to the editor, set up a petition, use the e-mail or internet campaigns that have proved such a boon for the Dean people - heck, you can demonstrate even if you want to, or go canvassing with your message door-to-door, the campaign form still dominant in the UK - you can sell buttons or bumper stickers - what bloody ever. Or "you and a group of your friends" can still each individually donate your contribution to your candidate for
him to make that ad, right?
Its not like suddenly the window of democracy is shut down here - its shut down only on specific kinds of a particular tool of campaigning - a tool, more specifically, access to which had
itself been limited by definition. Ads - especially TV ads - are only for those with money. A
lot of money. The other ways of campaigning, such as the ones described above, rely on manpower. Manpower is a much more free and democratic way of electioneering - for every new person you get committed to your cause, you get that extra bit of outreach - period. Ads - even a hundred committed, but low-income supporters of candidate A cant afford any - yet just the one, wealthy backer of candidate B can positively flood the airwaves. The dominance of TV ads as the campaign tool of this specific era itself already implied a restriction on free speech - it restricts it to those who can afford it. The alternative ways of "bringing attention" to one's cause do not so easily slant the facilities of free speech to those with money.
