Tyranny of the majority: David Limbaugh defends opponents of campaign finance reform

In response to a recent column about campaign finance reform, certain e-mail hecklers charged that I was ducking the constitutional issues. With this effort, let me try to put that misperception to bed.

First, there seems to be a rather widely held assumption that opponents of campaign finance reform are being disingenuous about their motives. Their real purpose, according to this thinking, is to preserve the status quo – their power base – and their constitutional objections are just lofty window dressing to disguise their sinister designs. To the contrary, the constitutional objections are valid and go to the core of our free society.

Reform opponents argue that outlawing (criminally, no less) issue ads by interest groups that mention federal candidates during the last 30 (primary elections) and 60 (general elections) days of a campaign is a violation of the First Amendment's free speech protections.

Reformers counter that money is property, not speech, and so the First Amendment isn't involved – or do they? Well, some of the reformers certainly say that, but the politicians voting for the measure themselves essentially admit that the bill implicates speech.

These politicians admit the nexus between money and speech when they say they want to reduce political advertising and negative ads by outside interest groups. Note: political and negative ads are the end product – the speech itself, not the money used to buy them. Their clearly stated purpose, then, is to reduce a certain kind of political speech during the most critical period in a campaign.

But we needn't rely on the politicians' admission. Those who contend that these expenditures are not speech ignore the reality that the only purpose of those expenditures is to accomplish the goal of political communication. In modern society, such expenditures are indispensable in enabling a candidate to communicate his positions to the voters. The only reason to limit such expenditures is to limit political speech.

Some reformers will expressly admit that their bill limits protected speech, but say that such limits are justified to serve other compelling federal interests – to equalize the economic power of various interests and to reduce corruption in the political process. They maintain that limiting expenditures will reduce the unfair communicative advantage that money affords the wealthy. The spending restrictions will give equal voice to the less well-heeled interests.

But if we go down this road, where will it end? As others have questioned, under such reasoning, wouldn't we be able to rationalize speech restrictions on other than economic grounds? Since some speakers (Alan Keyes) are more articulate than others (John McCain), should we restrict Keyes from political speech in the months immediately preceding elections?

Worse still, trying to equalize influence this way undermines a much higher purpose, which is to maximize information to the voters. So even if there were merit in trying to equalize influence (which there isn't), it would not be worth the cost: a less-informed electorate.

This effort to equalize also discounts non-economic factors at play in the electoral process, such as incumbency. And on that point, is there any better way to offset the advantages of incumbency than through heavy expenditures by the challenger?

The most remarkable thing about all of the reform mania is that it is all based on the flawed assumption that political contributions (and expenditures) inevitably corrupt the political process. How? Through so called quid pro quo arrangements, where politicians receiving large contributions reward those making the contributions and expenditures rather than acting primarily in the public interest.

But the reformers never produce any specific evidence of such corruption – they just say it exists because money is necessarily corrupting. "It is because it is and we are all corrupted by it," they intone gleefully. But this conveniently ignores the fact that most people and interests contribute and expend on behalf of candidates who share their ideological viewpoint, without expecting anything in return.

Interestingly, the two major catalysts for campaign finance reform have been Watergate and Enron. But for all the corruption of each, neither really involved quid pro quos. At least Enron appeared to receive no quid pro quos from the Bush administration. Yet both of these events have fueled reform measures that would have had absolutely no effect in preventing them.

Such irrational behavior on the part of congressmen operating under the pressure of politically correct reform measures underscores the fundamental principle of American statecraft that the rights of the minority, in this case, free speech, must be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

Some reformers will expressly admit that their bill limits protected speech, but say that such limits are justified to serve other compelling federal interests

Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

I agree with your constitutional response to the "reformers" big lie of "compelling federal interests."

I would like to add on to your "constitutional" analysis with the following:

"Reformers counter that money is property, not speech, and so the First Amendment isn't involved"

Well, "reformers" if the First Amendment is not involved, then how about the,

Fifth Amendment

...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be constured to DENY or DISPARAGE others retained by the people."

Oh, and back to the First Amendment,

...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

These are all "rights," not privileges.

Rights cannot be legislated away as the phrase "shall not," when enumerating these rights, clearly, categorically, and absolutely states.

One point he did not mention was that the MEDIA would then have a monopoly on such political speech. The rest of us would be denied the right to critisize politicains 60 days before an election, but the media would still have that right.

This explains why the media was all for it and would not report to the American people the true nature of this bill.

P.S. Shame on President G.W. Bush for putting his signature to such a document.

David Limbaugh writes:

"In response to a recent column about campaign finance reform, certain e-mail hecklers charged that I was ducking the constitutional issues. With this effort, let me try to put that misperception to bed."

Sounds alot like his brother, doesn't he?

You and your brother are contantly putting "misconceptions to bed" because you both are wishy washy when it comes to the categorical and absolute rights of the constitution.

For example, both David and Rush Limbaugh will argue against minimum wage laws and federalizing of airport security, but only on a utilitarian type basis.

They will never argue against minimum wage laws, because those laws violate the Fifth Amendment, in it's current method of implementation and that federal employees searching airline passengers violates the Fourth and probably the Ninth Amendments.

Is this lack of constitutional reference to the topics they write and talk about due to, 1)lack of the necessary intellectual rigor required, 2)fear of upsetting their RINO friends, 3)fear of risking their personal fortunes?

You know, I just realized that 'Congress should make no law' doesn't mean that 'the President should issue no executive order' or that 'bureaucrats should produce no regulations'.

You know what I mean? Now that we allowed big gov't to grow into the monster that it is, we may no longer be as protected as we thought we were.

"But the reformers never produce any specific evidence of such corruption – they just say it exists because money is necessarily corrupting."

Bill and Hillary two very specific examples of monetary corruption.

That said, this bill is without doubt the biggest threat to our freedom since Abe Lincoln was shot. If free associations such as the National Rifle Association or (forgive me for mentioning them) the Sierra Club are restricted in what and when they can speak, are not the individuals who make up these associations then restricted in what and when they can speak? If these associations can be restricted from the political arena are they not then subject to restrictions outside the political arena thus denying the members even the right of free association?

I think there is little possibility that this law will pass even the first court challenge. Should I be wrong, I'm afraid I'll have to start viewing those calling for another revolution in a more favorable light.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.