You should read this article. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has taken on the 'Evil' McCain-Feingold law. It was passed in the name of "reform." It is far from it; in fact it makes things worse, much worse.
A bedrock principle of our republic is freedom of speech. Congress shall make no law abridging it, says the Constitution. The main purpose of that provision was not to make sure exotic dancers could practice their trade, or that juveniles could curse in public settings--both of which are allowed by case law under our freedom-of-speech jurisprudence. No, the 1st Amendment was drafted in the context of the King of England suppressing his citizens' objections to his policies. The Founders did not want this for our new country.
So McCain-Feingold comes along and bars groups from talking about federal candidates near federal elections. When would be better to have a debate about such candidates?!?! This law is an affront to our very political order. Plus, as Romney points out, it does not work. As McCain tries to force money out of politics, he actually forces it into the shadows, where citizens can get less information about who is spending what. Columnist George Will has noted, too, that there is more money spent by Americans on pork rinds than on politics, so the notion that we are spending too much on politics is debatable.
Here's a couple of the highlights from Romney's article, but read the whole thing.
On the foxes setting the rules for the hen house:
Let's start with something basic: the American people should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without burdensome limitations. Indeed, such advocacy can play an important educational role in elections, helping to provide information to voters on a range of issues. Do we really want government telling us when we can engage in political speech, and what form it can take?
On lawyers and incumbents:
The American people should be able to exercise their First Amendment rights without having to think about hiring a lawyer. But that is the direction in which we are headed. In 2004, the non-profit group Wisconsin Right to Life wanted to run grassroots radio and television ads urging people in the state to contact their Senators (which the ads mentioned by name) and ask them to oppose the ongoing filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees. A provision in McCain-Feingold, however, was used to argue that the ads were illegal. Rendering a verdict on what constitutes acceptable political speech is something for voters – not judges – to decide.
So who, other than lawyers trained in the intricacies of federal campaign law, has benefited from McCain-Feingold? Washington's political class. Restricting political speech ultimately hurts those in the greatest need of political speech – challengers to incumbent politicians (thus the joke that McCain-Feingold should be called the "Incumbent Protection Act"). Do we really need Washington politicians doing themselves more favors to protect their jobs?
Romney is right about this benefiting the incumbents, they already have the franking privilege and exposure in their districts. It is the challengers, and groups supporting them, that need to get their word out. He's also right about the lawyers. I know a little something about political finances, and I have to call an campaign-finance-law expert every time I even think about something. For example, did you know a political party must pay for its bottled water, Kleenex, and paper clips with 72 cents of "state dollars" and 28 cents of "federal dollars" for every dollar spent? (Last year it was 79 cents to 21 cents, but I'm sure you all knew about this year's 7 cent change.)
What's the split? What items need to be split? What is a federal dollar? What is a state dollar? Does any of this help us preserve democracy?
Ask a lawyer,
Thomas More
Comments