A long time ago the government pretended its constraint under the Constitution. It was to be neutral regarding religion. It supposedly did not treat the people like criminals unless they actually were. It begrudgingly consented to the armament of the citizenry. It allegedly allowed people to voice their opinions, even if the expressed notions were unpopular. Those days are behind us.

Today there remains but a paper pretense of freedom in America.

A Colorado judge just ruled that a political Facebook post was impermissible “free” speech.

A state judge has ruled that a Facebook post by Liberty Common School amounts to an illegal campaign contribution to a Thompson School District board candidate.

In August, the Fort Collins charter school shared with its Facebook followers a newspaper article about a parent of a student running for a board seat in the neighboring school district. Liberty Common’s principal, former Colorado Congressman Bob Schaffer, then shared the post and called candidate Tomi Grundvig an “excellent education leader” who would provide “sensible stewardship” of Thompson.

Nick Coltrain, The Coloradoan, Oct. 22, 2015.

The judge said the violation was “minor,” but that [T]he school’s action was the giving of a thing of value to the candidate, namely favorable publicity…”

A Colorado law professor, one Scott Moss, was rightly alarmed by the ruling: “I don’t buy that under the First Amendment speech about a candidate can be deemed a contribution … Is speech valuable? Yes. But that’s not a basis for restricting core political speech.”

Naturally speaking, the good professor is correct. Legally and politically, he would have been correct in the former United States. Not today. Not in modern Colorado. Not in modern, post-Constitutional America.

I warned of this in postings prior. The particular judge in this case was likely just doing his job.  Rather than being a “judicial activist,” he was simply carrying out a bad law. Bad governments enact bad laws, historically. As governments all become debased, the outcome is always the same – the people are stifled. In a representative government this usually occurs at the people’s bidding. Odd, yes. Whatever Colorado election law rests at the heart of this ruling likely mirrors current federal law in spirit and/or form.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“The McCain–Feingold Act”), Pub.L. 107–155, 116 Stat. 81, 2 U.S.C. 431 et seq. and blah, blah, blah (effective January 1, 2003) set new limits on political speech.  This First Amendment nullifier was the brainchild of Republican Senator John McCain and signed into “law” by Republican idiot George W. Bush (who, at the time, admitted he did not understand what he was signing).

The Supreme Court later upheld the speech crushing effects of the Act in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003).  The gist of the opinion was that as the issues were political in nature and the two political branches had approved, the Court would simply defer to the esteemed wisdom of Congress and the White House.  They seem to forget all about the rights of the People and that thing … the um … the Constitution maybe? Whatever…

In his raging dissent Justice Scalia noted that modern elections were already so complex that only the well-connected and well-funded were safe to engage in them with any hope of success. He blasted the Act as limiting the speech of the people – their only remaining tangible connection to the process. So long as they comply with the Byzantine laws, the moneyed interests are free to support any candidate they choose. The little people, usually poor financially and in legal knowledge are now constrained to even voice political support.  Scalia noted that of all free speech political speech is the most important in a free society.

Of course, this might matter if we still were a free society.  We are not. Fred Reed succinctly nailed down the problem as to the political:

Democratic? As Stalin had show trials, America has show elections. These serve to distract the public while keeping them away from issues of importance. Who do you vote for if you want to end the wars, halve the military budget, end affirmative action, get the government out of family life, control criminal minorities who burn cities, and slap down NSA?

Fred Reed. Emphasis mine.

I love Reed’s work.  This particular gem of an article concerns more than just electoral politics – it explains the pitiful state of thinking (or lack thereof) across the whole American landscape.

About the half of it.  Google.

Election season is once again upon us.  It’s always election season it seems. Daily, I see many of you voicing support for this or that candidate on Facebook and elsewhere. Be careful what you say lest you commit the “minor” violation of free speech.  Me, I need not worry.  I never support any candidate. I support freedom.