Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of The 1st Amendment, Finally

NRO has started doing a number of daily emails, one of which I highlighted yesterday--Jonah Goldberg's The Goldberg File.

NRO's Jim Geraghty, better known for his coverage of elections, has started something called Morning Jolt. Whatever you think of the respective names of these daily email newsletters, the content is pretty good.

For instance, here's Geraghty's survey of reactions to yesterday's SCOTUS ruling which strikes down key parts of McCain-Feingold (good riddance) and strengthens the 1st Amendment.

AP: "The 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said companies and other outside groups can be prohibited from paying for ads to back or oppose a federal candidate." The guys at Cato are thrilled: "In short, the Citizens United decision has strengthened both the First Amendment and American democracy."

Most conservatives were pretty cheery about the decision; generally on the right folks conclude that you can't restrict political spending without restricting political speech, and if the First Amendment is supposed to mean anything, it's supposed to protect your God-given right to declare as loudly and widely as you want that those who govern you stink to high Heaven. Otherwise, you end up with a First Amendment that somehow protects lap dances but not political advertising close to an election.

Ed Morrissey: "In the first challenges to the BCRA (McCain-Feingold), the earlier court appeared to accept the notion that one has to break a few First Amendment eggs to get a clean-elections omelet. This court has apparently decided that Congress should amend the First Amendment if it has grown tired of it, rather than pass laws that contradict it. The fact that only five of the nine justices could reach that rather obvious conclusion shows how much judicial activism and Congressional overreach have in common -- especially the sense that they can manipulate clear boundaries of power for whatever end they seek."

Michelle Malkin: "Yes, unions will benefit from the ruling and spend more money. But sunlight is the best disinfectant. Full, transparent, accessible disclosure is the ultimate campaign finance reform. As for viewing the decision through the 'political plus' lens: I don't. The Constitution matters more than electoral consequences. Too bad more in Washington don't see it that way."

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," declared President Obama, who was elected with the assistance of hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from unions, trial lawyers, Hollywood, academia, Goldman Sachs, and environmentalists. Despite what you might think from that opening sentence, he disapproves of the decision.

At Bench Memos, Bradley Smith makes short work of the legislative responses introduced by Rep. Alan Grayson, the Floridian who represents Daily Kos in Congress: "That these proposals are clearly unconstitutional doesn't matter much to Mr. Grayson, who only has eleven months left in Congress to make his reputation and gain that slot guest hosting for Keith Olbermann. It's highly doubtful they could ever pass, anyway."

Caleb Howe watches Olbermann so we don't have to, and he finds Keith saying that the Supreme Court decision on campaign finance was "worse than slavery."

Anyone else shocked Keith Olbermann still has a job?

Ps. Don't forget: Sign up for Geraghty's Morning Jolt.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

More Reasons For Optimism

From Jim Geraghty at Campaign Spot, his friend, the man they call "Obi-Wan." Let the Democrats and moderates get their poll-predicting information from complex statistical modeling and empirical evidence. As for me, I'll take the word of a Star Wars hero:

Look, the real drama to this election is being provided not by the candidates but the polling community. By which I mean the decision they made to stake out — as Campaign Spot has noted — a remarkably bold position, that the Democratic Party turnout is not only going to exceed a recent historic advantage of 4 percent but go to 6.5 percent (Rasmussen) to 8 percent in many polls to even 12 percent in one.

I keep looking for the justification for this. Not easy to find. Rather like the academics' one-time belief in the Aristotlean spheres and an earth-centered universe, it just seems to be a pretty good working theory — some sort of way to make sense of observable phenomena and keep all the smart people talking agreeably and pleasantly among themselves.

[...]

In the old days the networks had political directors like Marty Plissner and Hal Bruno who kept an eye on the tendency to politicize the number-crunchers. What happens when that sort of internal check is lost was evidenced by the spectacular embarrassment – the debacle — of the exit polls in 2004. (Obi ) The polite explanation was that the skewing resulted from the fact that Democratic voters are more likely to talk to polling representatives at the polls. What got buried was the fact studies found that the cultural-political backgrounds of the exit-poll employees was a big factor.

Anyway, back in the days when exit polls were reliable — if a first or second wave of numbers were seen similar to the McCain-Obama battleground polls that came out today the network insiders would have been saying: hold everything, this is a very close one. (That's because they usually wacked two or three points off the Democrats' total since urban areas get better represented in the exit polls.)

So, if the polling community is basically right in their turnout models, this is looking like '64 — a nightmare scenario for the GOP. But if they are off to any significant degree, the state polls seen today (even though some of them favor a high Dem turnout model) make this a very different race. And what about the outlier polls in Pennsylvania and even one in Minnesota showing a close race?

And there are other questions. What about the reaction to media bias (Obamamania, the resentment towards Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber) driving up Republican turnout? What about the extent to which Reagan Democrats in Florida are being urged to the polls by the McCain campaign?

And the reason that the polling community, not to mention the Obama campaign should be uneasy is that finding the justification for their heavy Democratic weighting isn't readily accessible. And that is the point – along with failing to themselves take note that in this period of unprecedented economic turmoil and therefore any predictions this year might be questionable or at least hugely complicated, the pollsters and media gurus never really put their own premises about voter turnout front and center and asked for questions, objections and evaluations.

They seem to have slipped into a world of easy assumptions. Always dangerous for those whose job is to quantify and track the stars and planets of an ever-changing, ever-moving political universe.

Ignore the exit polls, wait for the real voting tallies to come in.

For those of you who prefer "stats" to "Star Wars," this seems like as good of a time as any to re-link to Iowahawk's little ditty on the supposed scientificness of polls and stats behind them.

Let me put it this way: Things with a lot fewer variables and even lower probability happen all the time.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.