A reader’s response, similar to more than one I’ve received:

There is absolutely no doubt that Kos is engaged in organized, purposeful, partisan electioneering. If electioneering is going to be subject to regulations, then the playing field has to be fair and level. This would not shut Kos and his followers up, but it would subject them to spending and other restrictions.

I disagree, because I am arguing both points. First, Kos should be free to speak as he likes. Second, if there is any law that could possibly be interpreted to say otherwise, it should be thrown out. We should not even have to ask whether political speech can be legally disseminated, and I think it offensive that Daily Kos must pretend to be a journalistic enterprise in order to have the Constitution applied to it. We used to have an unorthodox campaign-finance regime in this country called “the First Amendment.” It would not be so bad to go back. It would, paradoxically, deprive Washington’s lobbyist-gatekeeper class of all its power. After all, who besides a powerful lobbyist can come up with 100 people ready to max out with $2,300 for your Senate campaign, and then deliver them at a fundraiser? Is that cleaner than having an eccentric, wealthy donor give you $230,000, as some states currently allow? At least in the latter system, there is absolutely no question about others’ free speech rights. A lot of people outside the beltway just do not understand that it is precisely by limiting federal political contributions that we have given the professional lobbyists all of the cards in the world of policy and legislation.