1. FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee, 470 U.S. 480 (1985).
2. Ironically, in arguing for its refusal to pay attention to inequality of resources, the Court made a ringing statement which can very easily be used to subvert its own position. It said: “The First Amendment's protection … cannot properly be made to depend on a person's financial ability to engage in public discussion.” This sentence seems to illustrate the contradictory tendencies embedded in rights discourse of which I have spoken.
3. Supra, note 10.
4. Justice Felix Frankfurter was a past master as such argument.
5. Michelman, supra, note 16.