In his interview, Breyer argued that in some cases it wouldn't make sense to strictly follow the Constitution because phrases such as "freedom of speech" are vague. Judges must look at the real-world context -- not focus solely on framers' intent, as Scalia has argued -- because society is constantly evolving, he said.
"Those words, 'the freedom of speech,' 'Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech' -- neither they, the founders, nor those words tell you how to apply it to the Internet," Breyer said.
Pointing to the example of campaign finance, Breyer also said the court was right in 2003 to uphold on a 5-4 vote the McCain-Feingold law that banned unlimited donations to political parties.
Acknowledging that critics had a point in saying the law violates free speech, Breyer said the limits were constitutional because it would make the electoral process more fair and democratic to the little guy who isn't tied to special interests.
"You don't want one person's speech, that $20 million giver, to drown out everybody else's. So if we want to give a chance to the people who have only $1 and not $20 million, maybe we have to do something to make that playing field a little more level in terms of money," he said.
Breyer echoed the same idiotic "living breathing Constitution" garbage that Al Gore invoked during his failed campaign for President. It should come as no surprise that Breyer is a Clinton appointee when he uses liberal code words like "level the playing field". Liberals always employ feel-good phrases like "level the playing field" to mask their attempts to skirt the Constitution.
Since when is it the role of the judicial branch to decide fairness, and then legislate from the bench in a way that rectifies that perceived unfairness? Legislation is the role of Congress. See, to liberals, the Constitution is an obstical to be gotten around in order for them to foist their subversive agenda on the rest of us. Liberals(democrats) think that anything that makes them feel good and wins them votes should be law and so they appoint liberal judges who will agree with them. Conservatives look at the Constitution first, regardless of whether it makes them feel good or wins them votes.
The problem with allowing huge donors now is that they can do it in relative secret. Why not have absolutely unlimited political donations by anybody in any amount but with full and immediate disclosure? If ALL donations were immediately and fully disclosed in newspapers, radio, TV, and Internet, the candidates would be seen for exactly what they are...up for sale. What would be the chances of a candidate getting elected who took 20 million from the Sierra Club, big tobacco, or Hollywood? Not very good once the voters saw what was expected for that money.
Breyer wants to limit the free political speech of Americans just because they might be rich. Why should one American's political speech be restricted in favor of another's?