Talking Points!

Today I thought I weigh in on the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn campaign finance practices. I had trouble with this one, but I think I've got it down where I can digest it. I had some mixed feelings allowing corporations unlimited opportunity to finance their candidate It just seemed like he with the most money would win and the playing field wasn't level. I think we might all have trouble accepting the court's decision as just.

But upon further review, they were spot on. First of all, they didn't attempt to write legislation, that's just not their job. They simply stated the bill as presented to them didn't pass the smell test. It violated the principles outlined in the Constitution regarding free speech. You can't limit people's right to voice their opinion simply because you might not like the message.

A perfect example of this is a pending ad for the upcoming super bowl. College football great Tim Tebow is going to star in an advertisement touting the decision his mother made not to abort her pregnancy after being advised to do so by doctors, because of a possible defect due to illness. The result was the birth of Tim and his rise to greatness both on and off the field, is a testament to her wise decision. Not only does it have women's rights groups up in arms, it has a religious tone to it upsetting anti-religious zealots.

Let's address the women's rights groups first. My first question is; Why would you be opposed to a woman being able to hear this story? Whenever you make any decision you should be presented with all of the possibilities and only then are you informed enough to decide. Are proponents of abortion laws positions so thin they can't hold water to a true life story? What's the down side? A baby is born that might have been aborted? Truth be told I'd rather err on the cautious side of that fence. I'm sorry but this is an example of the right granted to us by our Creator, free speech, and the fact you don't like the message or the possible outcome is simply too bad. The only time free speech should be stifled is when it's abused, like screaming fire in a crowded venue when there clearly isn't one. But you do have the right to complain, as silly as you now sound. Isn't it funny a group dedicated to someone's rights would deny another's?

Now on to the anti-religious zealots who want this ad squashed because again they don't like the message. Again because you don't like the message is no reason to demand control of it. What is your argument, separation of church and football? The separation of church and state argument doesn't even pass the smell test, so trying to gag a TV ad applying that principle isn't going to work either. Freedom of speech cannot be inhibited just because you don't like the message or the possible results.

The Supreme Court's message was the legislation as it was written needed to be reworded to be constitutional. Here's the other side of this story. With this bill being enforced, big corporations have found other ways around promoting their candidate. General Electric bypassed this issue by purchasing NBC, and using it as a non-stop advertisement for the election of President Obama. Aren't media outlets corporations too? Why should they be given unlimited access to presenting their message to you? They do have lobbies and political agendas. How do we justify making them exempt? The Supreme Court was simply saying we can't hinder free speech because we don't like the message. It's one of the benefits of being free, everyone has a voice. Should they be equal voices? How do you decide what's equal? The deciding authority would have a louder voice, no? The first step in overthrowing a free society is to control the message. Enough said!

God Bless
Capt. Bill