This is a little late, but it’s still relevant. Consider this quote from Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, of McCain-Feingold fame (i.e., the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002). The quotation is from late in Senator Feingold’s campaign for reelection, which he lost:
"I've always been a target in this stuff. And this year, I'm getting the full dose: over $2 million in these ads [criticizing him] that used to not be legal."
In other words, if the Supreme Court had not, in its Citizens United decision of last January, cut back on some of the restrictions on free speech that were contained in the so-called campaign reform act that bears his name, Senator Feingold would have had $2,000,000 of fewer commercials against him in the fall election.
So why did Senator Feingold, and so many other senators and representatives, support things like McCain-Feingold: for the good of the country or for the good of their reelection campaigns? And can they tell the difference?
Update (12/8/10 10:55 pm): Let me see if I can phrase this another way. Senator Feingold tried to make it illegal for certain people and certain groups to campaign against him – because he thought they were being unfair. And it wasn’t good for democracy. (Or is it that it wasn’t good for “Democracy“?) In any case, the U.S. Supreme Court said that Senator Feingold’s attempt to stop certain people from criticizing him in certain ways violated the Constitution. (“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” and all that.) So Senator Feingold lost in November because, in part, he could no longer stop certain people from saying mean things about him.
Comments