The effort to censor Sinclair seems to me to be a bigger -- and more significant -- assault on free speech than fines against Howard Stern for using dirty words. I wonder if the free-speech defenders will turn out for Sinclair like they did for Stern?

So asks Glenn Reynolds about the airing of an anti-Kerry program called Stolen Valor. I defended Howard Stern repeatedly, and I defend Sinclair Broadcasting even more vehemently, because this involves an actual invocation of government censorship, whereas the Howard Stern flap was quasi-governmental in nature.

This is the real, unadulterated thing:

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- The Kerry campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission Friday asking that ads being broadcast by the 527 group "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" be taken off the air. The Democrats allege that the Bush campaign is behind the political spots that question the version of events for which John Kerry received his medals during the four months he served in Vietnam. Coordination between independent "soft money" groups and political campaigns is illegal.

The ads have had a significant effect on Kerry's poll numbers among veterans. The Massachusetts Democrat has suffered a double-digit plunge in support among the key demographic since the Democratic National Convention where the presidential candidate announced that he was "reporting for duty."

The Kerry campaign released a television spot of its own over the weekend challenging President Bush to denounce the ads and demand that they be taken off the air. It repeats the Democrats' assertion that the ads are a part of a "smear campaign" being waged by the Bush campaign.

Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee plans to file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging that the documentary is an illegal contribution of airtime to President Bush's campaign, a committee spokeswoman told CNN/Money.

DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe told CNN the complaint charges that Sinclair's plan is an "illegal in-kind contribution to the Bush-Cheney campaign."

"This is a group that is going to preempt their airtime to run a 90-minute documentary attacking Senator Kerry," McAuliffe said on CNN's American Morning. "This is a use of corporate funds. Under the law, you cannot use corporate funds to go out there and advocate for a party or a political candidate."

The FEC has civil authority to enforce the Federal Election Campaign act, which prohibits a corporation or union from making a contribution or expenditure to a candidate in a federal election.

As far as I'm concerned, when the Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold, they violated the Constitution they were sworn to uphold -- every bit as much as if a president or Congress had committed an unconstitutional act.

Of course the Democrats don't want the program to air. But that's as irrelevant to constitutional considerations as is the question of whether or not the Stolen Valor program is a smear. The Democrats can (and probably should) try to get their own program on the air, and the Republicans would have no more right to stop it than the Democrats do theirs.

Free speech ought to be a no-brainer. It's a shame there's no remedy when unconstitutional laws like McCain-Feingold are upheld.

Imagine the uproar if Republicans argued that Howard Stern is an illegal "campaign contribution" and demanded he be taken off the air for that reason!

If they can get away with this stuff, will blogs be next?

UPDATE: I was not engaging in hyperbole when I asked whether blogs will be next. The FTC has now declared that they intend to regulate "political activity" on the Internet!

A recent federal court ruling says the FEC must extend some of the nation's new campaign finance and spending limits to political activity on the Internet.

Long reluctant to step into online political activity, the agency is considering whether to appeal.

But vice chairwoman Ellen Weintraub said the Internet may prove to be an unavoidable area for the six-member commission, regardless of what happens with the ruling.

"I don't think anybody here wants to impede the free flow of information over the Internet," Weintraub said. "The question then is, where do you draw the line?"

Is this still a free country?