Trying to curtail speech

In a 5-4 decision -- after hearing government attorneys agree that the McCain-Feingold federal campaign finance law meant even political books could be banned from publication during the 90 days before an election -- the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 21 ruled the words "Congress shall make no law" mean what they say. The justices held in the Citizens United case that corporations have a right to political speech, that they can spend money supporting or opposing individual candidates.

Since the ruling, Democrats have been braying like wounded hounds.

Now Democratic congressional leaders have unveiled proposals intended to "limit the impact of a Supreme Court decision allowing unfettered corporate spending on political campaigns," The Washington Post reports.

Sen. Charles Schumer of New York and Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland called Thursday for a ban on participation in U.S. elections by companies with more than 20 percent foreign ownership, government contractors and bank bailout recipients.

Which means they'd be barred from "uttering a word during election campaigns," apparently.

The Democratic scofflaws also want to require companies to inform shareholders about political spending, and to mandate that corporate chief executives must appear in any political advertising funded by their companies.

Maybe a single vote of the U.S. Supreme Court shouldn't be the final word on what's constitutional. Alternatives can always be discussed. But imagine, for a moment, the Democratic response should a Republican majority ever declare they were planning to enact laws to "find a way around" the Miranda ruling, the Roe v. Wade abortion decision, and any number of other court edicts whose results are held in reverence by liberal Democrats -- whether or not they could ever have won majority popular support.