The New York Times is Liberal. Do I have to point this out? In today's editorial page they, of course, came out strongly in favor of the stripping away of our Constitutional rights.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, widely known as McCain-Feingold, closed two gaping loopholes in campaign finance law. One was "soft money," the unlimited, and often very sizable, contributions to political parties that were then funneled into federal campaigns. The other concerned sham "issue ads," commercials run just before an election that were unregulated because they purported to be about political issues but were actually intended to help particular candidates.
I like how they say sham issue ads. I guess when grassroots groups such as the NRA or ACLU run ads is a sham, but when a obviously liberal paper like the New York times runs slanted editorials or the LA Times sits on stories until it will most hurt a candidate they oppose that is legitimate free press.
They even go on to call for more reforms:
More, and more creative, approaches are needed. Now that many of the constitutional objections have been stripped away, Congress has a greater obligation than ever to address what the court's majority aptly called "the ill effects of aggregated wealth on our political system."
I would only have to assume that they are so much for these reforms because the large liberal press is now further empowered to attempt to use their might to mold American politics in a shape which they deem as correct.
American newspaper editorial pages were empowered yesterday, while the rights of everday citizens' voices to be heard by joining interest groups was diminished.
