A Response to “Colbert v. the Court”

This post is in response to Slate Columnist Dahlia Lithwick’s column ‘Colbert v. the Court’

In a recent article in Slate, Dahlia Lithwick argues that the Supreme Court (and hence, advocates of freedom) are losing the PR battle over the wisdom of Citizens United. In fact, she argues, the Supreme Court “never had a chance.” Link to Article

One reason Ms. Lithwick doesn’t touch on, as to why the Supreme Court “never had a chance,” is the coverage by the press – herself included – which has generally been biased, uninformed, incomplete, or some combination of the three when it comes to SuperPACs, Citizens United, and political spending.  Obviously, it is not the press’s job to carry water for the Supreme Court – that’s not what I’m asking. But, as happens over and over, the press does a poor job informing the public, and Ms. Lithwick, I have found, is no exception to that rule. So it seems rather odd to publish such a column.

Meanwhile, it’s further evidence as to why political spending is a good thing – the press simply cannot be counted on to inform the public well on almost any issue.

The Center for Competitive Politics is now the Institute for Free Speech.