“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; …”

Seems self-evident, does it not? Yet Congress has done precisely that on more than one occasion. The Communications Decency Act is one; McCain-Feingold Campaign reform is another. This latest is all the more amazing in its audacity since the Supreme Court has already struck down provisions of this bill that have been tried before. On the grounds that said provisions violated the First Amendment. The Court has help that political speech is protected and that money equals speech in the context of political activity. The authors of this shameful piece of legislation know full well that it is unconstitutional, yet they went ahead, confident in the public’s lack of understanding. That so many of their contemporaries went along does not surprise, after all, they will benefit most. All know the court will overturn this law, and while they will make noise in the press about it, they know there is nothing to be done.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree that balance needs to be implemented in the political process, but until and unless the major media outlets are willing to acknowledge their bias, such balance is not forthcoming.

As to speech itself, the prohibition contained in the Constitution applied to Congress. It does not apply to the Executive or Legislative branches, nor does it apply to the several states, except where the several states themselves have incorporated similar language. It most certainly does not apply to private institutions.

Does this mean that Universities, Clubs, and other private agencies may limit your speech to meet their ideas of decency or acceptable speech? or that your local town, with due process, may limit it also? Yes it does. The point is that the Federal Government may not.

Now all of that does not mean I have the right to force it down your throat, any more than you have the right to force me to listen or read your opinions and ideas. That is the great thing about our Constitution, the free exchange of ideas and thoughts is fundamental to our form of government, the necessity of an educated, informed electorate requires it.

Our Founding Fathers understood that for Republican democracy to work, the electorate had to be informed. They also understood that anyone could form opinions in direct contravention to those of the government, and that those ideas may be both important and influential to the process. This is not a bad thing in the exercise of sovereign franchise.

What????? Some of you may be asking is sovereign franchise. It is the exercise of political power by those who hold it. You, others, and me. At the current time, it applies to any warm body over the age of 18 years who can prove citizenship in the US. It does not mean that all of those who chose to exercise their right are wise, learned or sensible. Nor does it mean that they understand what they are doing, or they understand the responsibility that they hold. The exercise of sovereign franchise is the ultimate exercise of political speech and it is your responsibility to be as informed as possible so as to make the best decision possible. All the more so since the decision will have far reaching consequences and must be what you feel is best for the nation as a whole.

All of this is a benefit of the free speech and press provisions of our Constitution and it is our responsibility as citizens to safe guard these precious things.