Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech...

NY Times:

A quirky case about a slashing documentary attacking Hillary Rodham Clinton would not seem to be the most obvious vehicle for a fundamental re-examination of the interplay between the First Amendment and campaign finance laws.

But by the end of an exceptionally lively argument at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, it seemed at least possible that five justices were prepared to overturn or significantly limit parts of the court’s 2003 decision upholding the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which regulates the role of money in politics.

Several of the court’s more conservative justices reacted with incredulity to a series of answers from a government lawyer about the scope of Congressional authority to limit political speech. The lawyer, Malcolm L. Stewart, said Congress has the power to ban political books, signs and Internet videos, if they are paid for by corporations and distributed not long before an election.

...

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked, for instance, whether a campaign biography in book form could be banned. Mr. Stewart said yes, so long as it was paid for with a corporation’s general treasury money, as opposed to its political action committee.

“That’s pretty incredible,” Justice Alito said.

...

“If we accept your constitutional argument,” Chief Justice Roberts told Mr. Stewart, “we’re establishing a precedent that you yourself say would extend to banning the book.”

Justice Antonin Scalia said he was “a little disoriented.”

“We are dealing with a constitutional provision, are we not, the one that I remember which said Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press?” Justice Scalia asked. He was referring, of course, to the First Amendment.

They seem to have finally gotten around to the fundamental problems with McCain-Feingold. Attempts to construct ambiguity by restricting the use of money for speech are still just another way of restricting speech. Restricting the sue of money for speech is like saying your can speak, but you are not allowed to be heard. The 2003 opinion upholding the law makes no sense when you read the words "Congress shall make no law...."