Public funding is a supply-side solution to the problem of money in politics. Like most supply-side solutions, it would ultimately fail — because it would be continually dogged by the issue of free speech.

Congress and the FCC have failed — horribly failed — to ensure that the publicly owned electromagnetic broadcast spectrum is used for the public interest. Instead, this public resource …

It is downright bizarre that broadcaster middlemen hold our democracy hostage for the benefit of their stockholders. When the price of a soapbox requires a bank loan, only the rich get to speak.

The plague on democracy will not abate as long as we argue about regulating the SUPPLY of campaign money, rather than the DEMAND for it. The demand would be severely reduced if the FCC were to require …

The root of this problem is the failure to regulate the communications industry for the public interest.

Attempts have been made in Congress to pass legislation that would mandate free political advertising, or at least take steps toward that goal. For example, in 2003, there was Senate Bill 1497 — the “Our Democracy, Our Airwaves Act”:

campaignlegalcenter. org/FCC-198.html

The answer: NO, it does not.

.. no amount of fear filled rhetoric or screams about the sky falling changes the fact that our Constitution does not authorize such bans.

Like I already stated, you should read the dissent by Justice Stevens. He answers your questions. In particular, see Section 4:

law. cornell. edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html

Despite what you appear to think, the right to free speech is not absolute. (Not yelling “Fire!” in a theater is a classic example.) Stevens describes, in detail, the public interest in anticorruption, antidistortion, and shareholder protection.

I am trying to see where he argues the Constitutionality of the matter. I just don’t see it. It is a lot of “we can’t overturn precedent” talk.

I like the not yelling Fire! analogy though. Good point Very tricky to distinguish. The court used that argument back in 1919 (Schenck v. United States) in order to uphold a ban on the distribution of material opposed to the draft during World War I. The court at that time unanimously argued that speech that serves no purpose and is dangerous such as falsely yelling Fire! or opposing the governments war efforts (as if they were the same) can and should be banned.

Thankfully such gross logic was finally overturned FIFTY years later in Brandenburg v. Ohio, were some common sense prevailed that restricted the encroachment on free speech to situations were the a persons speech only purpose could be to incite imminent lawless action .. such as falsely yelling Fire!

“I am trying to see where [Stevens] argues the Constitutionality of the matter.”

Check out Section 3, Part 1 — Original Understandings

For example: “[T]here is not a scintilla of evidence to support the notion that anyone [in 1791] believed [the First Amendment] would preclude regulatory distinctions based on the CORPORATE form.” (emphasis added)