Two weeks ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on whether to amend the First Amendment in response to Citizens United and other campaign finance decisions that allegedly allow the rich to “buy” elections and prevent “ordinary” Americans from being heard.
Last week, I sat down with Yaron Brook for a wide-ranging discussion of Dave Brat’s surprise victory over House Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a Virginia primary election. We covered Brat’s views on Ayn Rand and free markets, Ayn Rand’s influence on politicians, and why thinkers on both the right and the left talk about her practically every day.
Steve Horwitz has a very interesting post about Ayn Rand over at Bleeding Heart Libertarians. He notes that Rand is often caricatured as an advocate of the rich and an enemy of the poor.
Michael Kinsley has a very sensible take on the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon decision that is particularly notable because he refuses to join the chorus of unfocused, hysterical complaints about money in politics emanating from many of his colleagues on the left.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has issued a spate of generally good campaign finance decisions that move steadily closer to treating free speech the way it should be treated — as an individual right. Last week’s decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, which struck down so-called “aggregate” contribution limits, is the latest example.
Most people have heard the phrase “chilling effect” in connection with free speech. The idea is that vague laws can cause people to stop speaking out of fear that they might say something that violates the law.
You’ve no doubt heard Obamacare referred to as a train wreck. It’s a good metaphor for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that train wrecks don’t just destroy the train, they cut a swath of destruction through the countryside.
