For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: the punditry's up in arms over the First Amendment.
Free speech really does mean free speech, and the laws that the "Citizens" ruling overturned directly and heinously restricted the stuff. Forget for the moment the broad characterization of the ruling -- such as The New York Times claim that it "sweep[s] aside a century-old understanding"...
We are living in a fragmented media age in which many nontraditional sources are producing journalism, even and especially of the advocacy variety (my opinion magazine, Reason, is funded by a nonprofit 501(c)(3). Why should nonprofit journalism producers -- like the Sierra Club, say -- have to ask for the government's permission to send a political documentary across the airwaves?
Does the Times want a monopoly on political speech?