Charles Schumer and Barack Obama plan to introduce a bill today in the Senate that will impose more regulation on political speech during campaigns in order to end "deceptive" practices. The New York Times editorial board enthusiastically supports this new bill, even though it admits that the one abuse most often associated with this effort can be prosecuted under existing law: Full Story »
Posted by Kaizar Campwala
This blog post is based entirely on a single New York Times editorial and doesn't even seem to accurately understand the thrust of the editorial. It seems to regard the fact that the New York Times endorses a piece of legislation as prima facie evidence that the legislation is bad. The editorial describe the legislation as something that "makes it a crime to knowingly tell voters the wrong day for an election," but somehow this blogger imagines that this sort of dirty trick qualifies as "political speech." The editorial then goes on to call for additional legislation aimed at deceptive "robocalls," but the blogger seems not to notice that there is a difference between this proposal by the NY Times editors and the actual legislation proposed in Congress. In short, this blog post is sloppy, tendentious and confused.
