SUPREME COURT BACKS DEEP POCKETS, NOT STUDENTS

THE SUPREME COURT tackled two key issues concerning free speech
recently, continuing with its recent rightward trend. The court wound
up freeing up corporate and union political spending while putting
more screws into students free speech.

The court ruled 5-4 that a Wisconsin anti-abortion organization should
have been allowed to sponsor advertisements using the names of the
states two U.S. senators in the weeks before one of them stood for
re-election. This came despite a 2002 federal campaign finance law
that bars organizations from broadcasting electioneering ads
specifically mentioning candidates before elections. The court
concluded that because the ads did not mention the election or if the
candidate was fit for office, the organization was free to run these
advertisements.

Then, there was the issue of an Alaska student suspended from school
for holding up a sign that read Bong Hits 4 Jesus during an off-campus
school function. The student sued and lost in federal court, but the
student won an appeal. The high court, however, ruled 5-4 that school
principals can restrict student speech at school events if, as Chief
Justice John Roberts wrote, it is reasonably viewed as promoting
illegal drug use.

What the first ruling has done is open the door for deep pockets to
broadcast so-called issue advertising close to Election Day, although
four years ago, the high court upheld the landmark McCain-Feingold
campaign finance law that barred interest groups from running
corporate or union-funded radio and TV ads that mention a candidates
name within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

Now theres a major loophole.

Groups such as big business can evade political spending limits by
funneling money to independent organizations, and then those
organizations can issue ads just short of qualifying as
electioneering. The court basically puts us back into
pre-McCain-Feingold, and now major interests can have a significantly
larger hand in deciding our future elections.

And while the door swung open for deep pockets, it slammed in the
faces of students across the country. Saying what is reasonably viewed
is open to wide interpretation -- maybe a student wears what
supposedly are gang colors when its actually a Warriors jersey.
Students can be hauled into the principals office and suspended for
anything that looks like a promotion for illegal or offensive behavior.

Isn't personal expression important to a students development?

Thanks to the high court, students now have to look over their
shoulders.

When President Bush put Roberts and Samuel Alito on the high court
bench, we feared what impact that would make in supporting Bushs
agenda over reasonable judgment. Its clear now the Supreme Court is
fulfilling our fears of its conservative nature, and now the hammer is
coming down on the Constitution before our very eyes.

Is it any wonder that Roberts was the one who cast deciding votes in
both cases? That says a lot about our new Supreme Court.