CAMPAIGN REFORM: IT'S ANYTHING BUT

New York Post ^ | December 11, 2003 | PATRICK BASHAM

[OESY]

Previous "reforms" taught us there's nothing certain about campaign-finance rules: New law produces unpredictable and unintended consequences. But these "reforms" will almost certainly give us campaigns that are less competitive, less controlled by candidates and their parties and involve fewer voters than the typical recent campaign.

[OESY]

THE SUPREME COURT TRASHES THE 1ST AMENDMENT, NY POST Editorial, December 11, 2003

When it comes right down to it, who really needs the First Amendment anyway?
That's basically the conclusion the Supreme Court reached yesterday when it upheld most provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), popularly known as "McCain-Feingold."

The law prohibits the use of "soft money" - large, unregulated donations to political parties from corporations and unions.

More significant, the law forbids "issue ads" that mention a candidate by name within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of primaries.

In essence, this means that just when voters want information the most - even if it is from an interested party - they won't be getting it.

McCain-Feingold is based on the notion that the American electorate is too stupid to figure out critical issues on its own.

And that the Founding Fathers didn't really mean it when they wrote "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . freedom of speech."



Because Congress made just such a law.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, noted, "We are under no illusion that [McCain-Feingold] will be the last congressional statement on the matter. Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day."

What a tragedy that the Supreme Court agrees with the underlying presumption of the law - again, that American voters are morons.

And that various interest groups - and interested individuals - aren't smart enough to get around any attempt to proscribe the transmission of information.

Well, guess what.

Billionaire George Soros has already pledged millions to fund independent groups formed solely to defeat George W. Bush.

That's his right, of course.

But why should Bush - or any candidate - be denied the right to respond?

Other political groups (called "527s") of various ideological stripes have arisen to push their issues separate from the traditional Republican and Democratic Party structures.

The end result is that less money will go to the two parties - where it could have been more easily tracked, and the parties themselves held accountable.

The outside organizations - whoever they line up with - will be far less accountable.

As Justice Antonin Scalia rightly said in dissent, this is "a sad day for the freedom of speech." Sadly, he may also be correct in saying, "We have witnessed merely the second scene of Act I of what promises to be a lengthy tragedy."

If a majority on the Supreme Court can assert the right to curtail political speech here, it will assert that same right in other areas as well.

Whether you're liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, that should be a chilling concept to consider.

[samtheman]

Back when this law was being debated, many said, "don't worry, the supreme court is sure to strike it down".

[steve50]

Back when a certain president was campaigning he said vote for me and I'll veto it. Let's see if a "conservative" congress has enough principles to attempt to correct the problem.

[Orangedog]

Let's see if a "conservative" congress has enough principles to attempt to correct the problem.

It won't unless there is a large amount of discretionary spending attached to it. And even then the RINO's and leftists in the senate will bottle it up.

[OESY]

A Campaign Finance Triumph, NY TIMES Editorial, December 11, 2003

The Supreme Court delivered a stunning victory for political reform yesterday, upholding the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law virtually in its entirety. The court rejected claims that the law violates the First Amendment, making it clear that Congress has broad authority in acting against the corrupting power of money in politics. The ruling is cause for celebration, but it should also spur Congress to do more to clean up our political system.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, widely known as McCain-Feingold, closed two gaping loopholes in campaign finance law. One was "soft money," the unlimited, and often very sizable, contributions to political parties that were then funneled into federal campaigns. The other concerned sham "issue ads," commercials run just before an election that were unregulated because they purported to be about political issues but were actually intended to help particular candidates.

Groups ranging from the National Rifle Association to the American Civil Liberties Union, joined by some elected officials, rushed into court to challenge the law as an infringement on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court rejected those claims, 5 to 4. Given the choice of seeing the law as a restriction on speech or as a needed corrective to corruption in politics, the court came down firmly on the side of considering it a corrective. It made clear that the free-speech test that applies to campaign contributions is a more forgiving one than is generally used for laws that prohibit speech itself. And it underscored that Congress had important interests in preventing both political corruption and the appearance of corruption.

Using this deferential legal approach, the court upheld the most important parts of McCain-Feingold. In the past, the Supreme Court has second-guessed Congress's enactments in this area closely, upholding parts of a campaign finance law while striking down other crucial parts. One of the most noteworthy aspects of yesterday's decision was how broadly it deferred to Congress's "fully legitimate interest in . . . preventing corruption of federal electoral processes through the means it has chosen."

The court's strong endorsement of Congress's authority to regulate money in politics should be seen as an invitation to further reform. There are good proposals pending in Congress, including the Presidential Funding Act of 2003, which would improve the campaign finance system starting in 2008, and a bill to replace the Federal Election Commission with an independent agency. More, and more creative, approaches are needed. Now that many of the constitutional objections have been stripped away, Congress has a greater obligation than ever to address what the court's majority aptly called "the ill effects of aggregated wealth on our political system."

[OESY]

Congress has a greater obligation than ever to address what the court's majority aptly called "the ill effects of aggregated wealth on our political system."

Following the Times' flawed logic, wouldn't Congress be entitled to address the ill-effects of aggregated influence on our political system, as represented by individuals like George Soros and corporations like the New York Times? Why should freedom of the press be inviolable when freedom of speech can be abridged by acts of Congress?

[Sunshine Sister]

It's already to late! Do you think any incumbent is going to rattle this cage? I strongly doubt it!

[steve50]

I know it and you know it. But I wish somebody would wake the rest of the so called conservatives up to the fact that public opinion is no longer to be tolerated during the election cycle. The two parties and extremely wealthy can speak, we are told to sit down and shut up.

[Sunshine Sister]

We got a movie removed from network TV. Why can't we band together and start getting supreme court justices who refuse to uphold the Constitution removed?

Those crooks even admitted on ruling based on international "feelings" not on the law in our country. By golly it is time to get rid of these old cranks!

[steve50]

The SC is an accessory after the fact. I blame the man who signed it into law just as much as I do them.

[jaugust]

I think Cal Thomas (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20031211.shtml) has a good op on Townhall.com about this and brought up the same point that I tried to make in yesterday's long thread about the SC decision.

"Political action committees can still function under the ruling, but PACs must provide lists of contributors to anyone interested. Hentoff reminds me of the 1958 NAACP vs. Alabama case in which the state sued the civil rights organization to stop it from conducting activities in Alabama on grounds that it had failed to comply with the requirement that "foreign corporations" register before doing business in the state. During the proceedings, Alabama requested the NAACP produce a large number of its records. The organization did so but held back its membership lists. The Alabama court found the NAACP in contempt and imposed a large fine.


"In its opinion overturning the state court ruling, Supreme Court Justice John Harlan wrote, "Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly. ." Justice Harlan then said something that could serve as a stern rebuke to the five members of the current Court who have effectively diminished the freedom of political speech: "In the domain of these indispensable liberties, whether of speech, press or association, the decisions of this Court recognize the ABRIDGEMENT of such rights, even though unintended, may inevitably follow from varied forms of governmental action. ."


I tried to tell those who who didn't think it was such a big deal or those who thought the constitution gave Congress the right to "regulate" elections that this was an "abridgement" to freedom of speech. Many talked about the "corruption" in politics or the money involved and that seemed to be the main concern. But is money the same thing as a gun being held to a politicians head? I believe not.

Political candidates make moral choices, or, at the very least, I wish they would. But the blame seems to be squarely on money and not on the candidate and his character. Sort of like blaming the gun for killing someone rather than the perpetrator of the crime.

But the MAIN concern here is "special interest groups and others" being banned from running political ads during the final two months of an election. An individual who goes to a TV or radio station to pay for an ad critical of a candidate could come under investigation. He could be asked what group he belongs to and where he got the money from to pay for the ad.

I would suggest to those who believe that they have no problem with this ruling to carefully look at the constitution, the First Amendment, and then look up the dictionary meaning of "abridge", and then tell us all why you believe that this ruling was in fact the right one.

[samtheman]

Let's see if a "conservative" congress has enough principles to attempt to correct the problem.

If this really does help incumbents stay in, and the incumbents happen to be Republicans who are "in principle" against this bill, will they really go to the trouble of correcting this error, if the error is, in fact, in their favor?

[OESY]

We are told to sit down and shut up.

This is a good way to prevent AIDS, but does little to aid the electoral process. The public forum for ideas and advocacy for issues and candidates should always be open, and free speech and free press never abridged. This is most important within 60 days of an election when the voting public becomes most attentive to arguments advanced.

The Founding Fathers had it right; our injudicious justices, journalist gendarmes and assorted politicians have it wrong. In their zeal to remove the appearance of the alleged and not proved corrupting influence of big money, often from the largest employers and labor representatives of which the vast majority have a legitimate interest in good government, these weak-minded do-gooders have created a greater injustice. This way they can avoid disciplining actual transgressors of laws against bribes, undue influence, corruption, and voting frauds, since that could be detrimental to their reelection campaigns.

Instead, Congress has created a veritable patchwork of complex regulations, riddled with loopholes that invite circumventions and stealthy manipulations -- as symbolized by George Soros' $15 million contribution to MoveOn.org, and subject to all the political influences that militate against the fair and equal administration of justice. The net result is a diminution in transparency and accountability.

Thus, in an effort to stem disaffection with campaign financing, Congress and the Courts -- assisted by some legislators and an executive who calculated the Supreme Court would reverse all constitutional errors, have generated a more fundamental, more corrosive cynicism with the American political procession by restricting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In actuality, nothing could be more detrimental to the integrity of our political system, particularly since there are self-interest motives by some.

I contend the legislation is wrong-headed, despite the beneficial outcome for conservatives and Republicans who have the majority of incumbents and who rely less on soft money from a wealthy few and more on hard money from many contributors than their Democrat counterparts.

For the record, I (humbly) suggested to the White House that the President travel to the Norman Rockwell Museum in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, stand in front of Rockwell's paintings of The Four Freedoms, specifically the painting of the US citizen voicing his concerns (below), and declare the Campaign Finance bill irreconcilable with American freedoms and constitutional rights. That would have been a principled act that would have earned President Bush meritorious recognition as a Profile in Courage. I was disappointed.

Freedom of Speech
Illustration for The Saturday Evening Post, February 20, 1943
©1943 SEPS: Licensed by Curtis Publishing, Indianapolis, IN

[perfect stranger]

bump

[Wphile]

Guilty as charged. I was one who thought the Supreme Court would strike it down - certainly the part about issue ads - and therefore thought it was okay that Bush signed it because by having it run through the SCOTUS the issue would be settled once and for all. Unfortunately, my trust in the judicial system was sorely misplaced. It is, indeed, a very sad day in America.