The Supreme Court's most recent decision, McConnell v. FEC (02-1674) was a blow for freedom of speech. The subject of the case was the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, which prevents so-called soft money contributions from PACs, special interest groups, labor unions, and other political organizations.

The Supreme Court, in another 5-4 decision, ruled in favor of the FEC and campaign finance reform, noting, "The governmental interest underlying §323 (a) [of The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002] -- preventing the actual or apparent corruption of federal candidates and officeholders -- constitutes a sufficiently important interest to justify contribution limits."

The Supreme Court, however, has recognized time and time again that money talks: money is part of freedom of expressive association; that is, how I spend my money indicates what my opinions are. The fact that I donate money to a extremely left-wing communist organization is me voicing my opinion in favor of communism. And yet the majority of the nine justices felt that the government's interest in preventing federal candidates from being "bought" by high-paying contributors outweighs the government's need to protect speech. John McCain has been at the forefront of attempts to cut down on corporate involvement in elections and the general impression that politicians are no-good liars. Whilst campaigning for president three years ago, he toured the country on the "Straight Talk Express," a gimmick that he devised to create the impression that other candidates don't talk straight.

Like anything that curtails freedom of speech, there are legitimate elements of speech that get hurt in this decision, too. The Supreme Court has always erred on the side of hate groups when it comes to squelching so-called hate speech or letting freedom of speech be open for everyone; in this case, however, it has erred on the side of squelching free speech, and no doubt this will have a significant impact on state and local elections in the future.