In Friday’s Wall Street Journal, Kimberley Strassel talks about the problem John McCain is having with conservatives because of the McCain-Feingold law. She quotes Bradley Smith, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission: "For most conservatives, campaign finance is conceptually pretty easy; they saw it as targeting them. I've been surprised at how angry people were, and remain, over that law." She continues:
"[T]alk to Republican Party officials at the state, county and local level, and among their biggest gripes is the difficulties they face in recruiting local candidates, funding those candidates, and registering voters to support those candidates – all thanks to McCain-Feingold. Some leaders point to the lackluster support Mr. McCain has received from state delegates as an expression of this bitterness."
I can understand that many conservatives will not support Senator McCain because of his position on "campaign finance reform" because I feel the same way. However, unlike those conservatives who oppose McCain-Feingold because it hurts Republicans, I oppose McCain-Feingold because it is wrong. It limits everybody’s freedom of speech and press and right to seek redress of grievances. For example, among other things, McCain-Feingold prohibits talking about politics and public issues in certain ways during the period either 30 or 60 days before an election. (30 days for a primary; 60 days for a general election.) But that is exactly what freedom is about: Talking about candidates before an election. If restrictions of the kind contained in McCain-Feingold are not unconstitutional, it is only because too many Supreme Court justices are reading their own personal policy preferences into words in the Constitution that should be absolutely clear.
The point is that Republicans should not be against McCain-Feingold because it will hurt them. It does not matter who is helped and who is hurt by these restrictions. Republicans should be against McCain-Feingold and its ilk because they are wrong.
Here is an example of what Republicans should not do. McCain-Feingold bans soft money contributions to parties. Therefore, in 2004, because money cannot be stopped, only diverted, 527s popped up. The Democrats initially thought this would hurt them, so before the election in 2004 there was a move by Democrats (unfortunately supported by the White House) to put restrictions on 527s. Republicans opposed the attempt, and fortunately they prevailed.
During the election, however, it turned out that 527s supporting Kerry and Democrats received more money than those supporting Bush (see MoveOn.org, etc.).* Therefore, in 2005 the Republicans in the House tried to pass restrictions on 527s. This time it was the Democrats posing (and I do mean posing) as protectors of freedom. Fortunately, the Republicans failed. In any case, this was exactly the wrong thing for Republicans to do. We need to be defenders of freedom, not defenders of whatever we think will help us in the next election.
The point is that it does not matter who spent more money. The 527s in 2004 were okay because they were people spending or contributing money to help elect, or defeat, the candidates of their choice. That is what the First Amendment is, or at least should be, all about.
In 1987, when the Federal Communications Commission finally got rid of the "Fairness Doctrine," I was all for it. I was not for it because I knew Rush Limbaugh and all the rest of talk radio was coming. I was not that smart. I was for it, even though most of the television stations at that time had a liberal slant in their coverage, because it was the right thing to do. It was about increasing freedom.
It does not work to be for campaign reform proposals when you think they will help you and to be against them when you think they will hurt. The key is freedom. Campaign reform laws are about taking freedom away from some people because other people think they have too much freedom (maybe the other people think they are spending too much money on politics). Campaign reform laws are about restricting the freedom of some people because other people do not like what they are doing with their freedom. But this means your freedom, even your freedom to try to change your government, is conditional on other people approving how you use it. That is not freedom and that is not democracy and that is something Republicans need to be against – because there is no way we can trust the Democrats to be against it.
-------------------
* The 527s supporting Bush (or at least opposing Kerry) were, however, more effective. Thank you, Swift Boat Veterans.
Comments