California State University – Fullerton student Keith Fierro has an interesting observation about the left’s use of its First Amendment rights.

If the past months’ bickering on whether religious employers should have to pay for personal contraceptive items to which they morally object has taught us anything, it’s that the left is irresponsible with the First Amendment.

On the left, the question orbiting the First Amendment is almost never what is legal, but what is popular or what they ironically call good. Buttressing these campaigns are slogans that act as proxies for real argumentation.

Following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in McCutcheon v. FEC – a thoroughly ordinary free speech decision – bleeding hearts burst forth with their slogans. Berkeley torchbearer Robert Reich was so bothered by the decision (which struck down aggregate limits on individuals’ contributions to candidates and political action committees) that he called for taking a sledgehammer to the Constitution:

…Reich’s bumper sticker arguments are the bulk of the intellectual ammunition behind the left’s opposition to protecting political spending under the First Amendment. But their slogans are completely hollow.Money isn’t speech. While this is technically true, it’s legally irrelevant. No, money isn’t speech. Neither is cardboard or a wooden stake. However, no one would argue that the government can ban these materials so you can’t make signs. Is it alright to ban the purchasing of gas to drive to city hall and protest a corrupt mayor because petroleum isn’t speech? Is it acceptable that the government ban political contributions altogether?

Corporations are not people. …
Our democracy isn’t for sale. ..

McCutcheon didn’t change the base giving limits of $2,600 per federal candidate or $5,000 per PAC per year. Nor did it say that corporations and unions can give to candidates. These laws remain unchanged. The issue was whether Shaun McCutcheon, who had already made donations in total of $30,088 to 16 candidates could give additional donations of $1,776 to 12 more candidates, putting him over the aggregate limit. Finding no good reason why he could not, the Court struck down the law.

If the first 16 candidates weren’t corrupted by donations of $2,600 or less, why would the next 12? Why would the next 50? This is the price of democracy – less than $3,000?

The media, Hollywood, academia – these are all huge platforms beloved and dominated by the left. The order to play fair and respect the political voices of others endangers this monopoly on communication. Of course, if the roles were switched, if The New York Times and primetime television were threatened for being too influential and corrupting to the marketplace of ideas, any suggestions at curtailing their voice would be shut down.In the war of ideas slogans can be used, but they are midget arguments and will certainly lose. Let us at least play fair when others choose to not wield the same weapons.