They usually do.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Is this not exactly what McCain Feingold does?

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

For some mystical reason, The Supreme's upheld it when McConnell brought a constitutional challenge. IIIRC.

It seems like it's an abridgement of anonymous free speech.

__________________
1984 300TD

Seems like the cows coming home to me.
From the linked article-
"This isn't the first time documentary filmmakers have been questioned in relation to campaign finance laws. Citizens United in 2004 sought to keep filmmaker Michael Moore from advertising "Fahrenheit 9/11" — which was critical of President George W. Bush — in the run-up to the presidential election."

And Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't a direct attack on Bush? I don't know, I never saw it because I wouldn't watch a MM film if someone paid me. But I did see the constant advertising and critical reviews, and it looked a lot like an attack piece to me.

__________________
1993 300E 2.8 185k miles
2006 Mustang Convertible 4.0 Eaton Supercharged

That would have been a big surprise to Roger Smith.

__________________
Palangi

2004 C240 Wagon 203.261 Baby Benz
2008 ML320 CDI Highway Cruiser
2006 Toyota Prius, Saving the Planet @ 48 mpg
2000 F-150, Destroying the Planet @ 20 mpg



TRUMP .......... WHITEHOUSE
HILLARY .........JAILHOUSE
BERNIE .......... NUTHOUSE
0BAMA .......... OUTHOUSE

I never claimed Farenheit 9/11 was anything.
At stake here is whether the financers of the film must be disclosed-not that the film can't be shown as whined in the first post.

Why is it anybody's business, other than the IRS and maybe the SEC? Is freedom of speech dependent on government approval?

Do you disagree with campaign contributions being controlled too?

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

I dunno.
But I rarely see Republicans rally to the cause of free speech unless it involves political finances.

Almost absolutely. I think anybody anywhere on the planet and to infinity and beyond should be able to give whatever they want to whomever they want.

My almost impossibly minor restrictions are that the candidates be personally and criminally liable to make sure that every dime donated is fully disclosed before any of it can be spent and before it can be used to leverage other fundraising. Another restrictions would be that only individuals may donate: no consortia, companies, unions, veterans groups, old fart groups, sports groups, indian tribes, constituted nations, etc. Donations may come from individual human type people, only.

B

Obviously that nitwit McCain stands out as a prince among examples of Republicans abhorring free political speech.

If you look through what I posted, you wont see a partisan component to my argument.

freedom of speach is only if you are in the majority it seems - like me i have been cencered twice today once for a post and once for asking a question about the reason soooo i guess i got the message you are only allowed to be a wipping post for the kindred on this forum

After reading this and your preceeding post, I don't understand why you object to the requirement that the financers of the Hillary film be disclosed. That is the gist of the argument before the Supremes.