Replies

By John Carlisle, director of policy at the National Legal and Policy Center, a nonpartisan foundation promoting ethics and accountability in public life:

Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity says Soros' contributions are legal but violate the reform spirit: "I have a hard time seeing what the difference is between a soft-money donor to a party and a big 527 donor, especially when both give million-dollar checks."

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21 and a Soros grantee, also argues that Soros' vast donations run counter to the purpose of McCain-Feingold, which was "premised on ending the role of individuals doing such things."

Asked about Soros' giving, Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo) observed, "It is not consistent with campaign reform." But he added an important qualifier: "It is consistent with what the Constitution says about freedom of speech."

Which brings us to the real problem with campaign-reform supporters like Soros: It's not that they can't be consistent with their policy objectives. The problem is that the policies they advocate are unconstitutional.

Political donations to candidates, parties, political action committees or 527s represent the exercise of free speech, protected by the First Amendment. As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia put it, the McCain-Feingold law "cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government."

To many, George Soros' politics are controversial. Yet no matter how controversial, it is his right to voice those views and to spend his money to disseminate them. But he ought not to have pushed for a law that restricts that right for other people. Now that Soros has helped make the law's inherent contradictions so self-evident, it is time to repeal McCain-Feingold altogether.