Book banners?

When it comes to the unusual Supreme Court rehearing Wednesday in the case involving campaign finance reform, free speech and "Hillary: The Movie," the crux of the issue was laid bare during the original arguments in March.

Citing McCain-Feingold's restrictions on independent political advertising near election time, an appeals court had upheld a Federal Election Commission ruling that the "Hillary" movie -- a thinly veiled conservative attack on Hillary Clinton -- could not air within 30 days of a presidential primary.

The producer sued, and the case made it to the high court.

As the justices questioned attorneys on both sides, a government lawyer was asked whether Congress could also pass legislation outlawing the publication of a corporate- or union-sponsored book critical of a specific candidate near election time.

Yes, indeed, the attorney replied. "Justice Samuel Alito blurted, 'That's pretty incredible,' and other justices openly gaped," noted National Public Radio.

So we are now faced with defenders of "campaign finance reform" trying to square a law that would allow book banning with the laughable contention that their pet cause has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

As much as they'd like to jam that square peg in a round hole, it can't be done.

The notion that Congress -- under the guise of ensuring "fair" elections, keeping corporate or union money out of politics or some other chimera -- has the power to pass laws banning certain books, movies or TV ads that take on political candidates runs in direct conflict with the free speech protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights and ought to horrify any American.

End of story.

Wednesday's rehearing of the matter -- scheduled in June after the court failed to reach a decision following the March arguments -- was widely viewed as a signal that two of the three newest members of the court were ready to join the three justices who have previously signalled their willingness to toss out these unconstitutional restrictions on corporate campaign spending. The tone of the questioning did little to change that perception.

Good.