George Will: Free Speech Under Siege

Newsweek (Dec. 5, 2005 Issue) ^ | November 27, 2005 | George Will

[Jim Robinson]

In California, 'progressive' thinking has progressed to the idea that because money in politics is bad, political competition is, too.

Dec. 5, 2005 issue - Attacks on freedom of political speech are becoming more brazen. Because the attackers aim to enlarge government's control of the political campaigns that decide who controls government, the attacks advance liberalism's program of extending government supervision of life.

Some liberal senators have filed a brief urging the Supreme Court, in a case concerning Vermont's speech restrictions, to affirm that people like the seven senators—"elected representatives and seasoned participants in the electoral process," meaning professional politicians—"are entitled to broad deference in the regulation of federal elections." Entitled, that is, to regulate the quantity, the timing and even the content of speech about themselves. Indeed, in its 5-4 decision upholding the McCain-Feingold law's expansion of government regulation of political communications, the Supreme Court held that political incumbents are entitled to judicial deference when they write rules that control challenges to their incumbency.

Under Vermont's limits, a candidate for state representative in a single-member district can spend no more than $2,000 in a two-year cycle. Every mile driven by a candidate—or a volunteer—must be computed as a 48.5-cent campaign expenditure. Just driving—and not much of it—can exhaust permissible spending.

In 1976, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of federal limits on large contributions because such limits serve the compelling purpose of preventing corruption—which is already illegal—or the "appearance" of it. But the court struck down spending limits because they involve no similar "appearance." Obviously such laws limit the quantity of political communication and favor the well-known incumbents who enact them: they limit the ability of challengers to make themselves known.

[Jim Robinson]

"But liberals' abhorrence of political money is selective. Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, recently reported that when Democratic senators met in a Capitol room near the Senate floor to plan strategy, their leader, Harry Reid, permitted Stephen Bing to attend. In 2004, Bing, 40, gave more than $14 million of his inherited wealth to Democratic candidates and liberal groups supporting them.

Was there any appearance of impropriety—say, cash purchasing access? Gosh, no, said Democrats to Roll Call: "Reid's aides and other Senate Democrats said there is nothing wrong with such a big donor attending meetings otherwise open to only senators and a few top aides, because Bing is not a lobbyist and is not seeking any favors from Democrats." Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that Bing is "just really interested in making this country better." Oh, well, in that case..."

[af_vet_rr]

Because the attackers aim to enlarge government's control of the political campaigns that decide who controls government, the attacks advance liberalism's program of extending government supervision of life.

Unfortunately there's some in the GOP who would love to help them...

[Lancey Howard]

There's some frightening things in the wind.

[Lancey Howard]

P.S. I have no doubt that the socialist "mainstream" newsrooms will do whatever they can to help any effort to regulate the internet.

[Eddie01]

Bing is... "just really interested in making this country better" and is willing to pay 140,000 one hundred dollar bills to do it. ... to one party.

[goldstategop]

I guess it all depends on who gets the money. Then you'll see the Democrats toss CFR out the window faster than you'll throw your underwear in the washer.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[cricket]

"Bing is not a lobbyist and is not seeking any favors from Democrats." Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that Bing is "just really interested in making this country better."

No road takes us faster to hell, than the one paved by the collective and reason-impaired, will-to-power, mind-set of 'the Left'.

Historical paradigms are not enough. . .cultural blood-lettings not enough; generations of lives wasted for the empowerment of the self-chosen; not enough; and the price paid for our Freedoms, still not enough, for them to see that the axioms they hold dear, are rooted in an 'anti'. . .inauthentic, false-is-true/hell-is-heaven, nether/parallel world;

(I would not trust O'Reilly with this one. . .but Rush or Sean, should take this on)

[xzins]

And a federal judge with an interesting theory of liberty—that whatever Congress does not specifically exempt from regulation should be regulated—decided that the FEC's exempting the Internet from regulation is impermissible because Congress was silent on the subject. She ordered the FEC to write regulations. This, even though Internet communication is limitless, virtually cost-free and, hence, wonderfully anarchic.

It isn't money that is the target, is it?

It's control they want.

[leadpenny]

Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that Bing is "just really interested in making this country better."

There ya go. Game - Set - Match. What's really sad is that she probably believes her own BS.

[6SJ7]

In Sen. Boxer's warped calculus, Conservatives are a disease in the body politic. A 'better' country to her would be a one party model like China... with her party in control, naturally; the 'good' party.

[sauropod]

This is not good. Kinda akin to letting Terry McAuliffe attend Columbia Land board meetings.

"Well, he just wants to make the country better." /s

[OpusatFR]

This is the totally frightening statement of the whole piece:

"...that whatever Congress does not specifically exempt from regulation should be regulated."

[RoadTest]

Power corrupts!

[gridlock]

Well, it's not like the First Amendment has anything to do with political speech. It's all about flinging condoms in church, pasties on strippers and taking "Under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

[ez]

Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that Bing is "just really interested in making this country better."

There ya go. Game - Set - Match. What's really sad is that she probably believes her own BS.

Even as they destroy the system by trashing tradition and ignoring laws, their imaginations, allowing them to accrue all manner of evil to their opponents, make it possible to rationalize the very acts of destruction as "making this country better..." the "ends justify the means" mindset. As for how they can assure themselves of the evil of the right, I am convinced it is simply because they secretly know what lives in their own baby-killing, dark hearts. Or maybe Milton said it better, as in my tagline...

[Puddleglum]

This shows how important it is to have Supremem Court judges who know the Constiution. I am shocked by how insidious the effort to regulate free speech is becoming.

[Hardastarboard]

Money and control are like energy and matter. You can turn energy into matter, and vice versa. If they have control, they can take your money. If they have your money, they have control. Either way, they end up with your money, and control.

[purpleland]

"In California, 'progressive' thinking has progressed to the idea that because money in politics is bad, political competition is, too."

No, "progressive thinking" does not honestly hold to the belief that money is bad in politics. "Progressive thinkers" and other ill-liberals preach that money is bad to disarm and disparage the political opposition. Also, ploying a little hyped-up mantra to gain sympathy in soliciting donations. Hypocritical leftist partisanship spinning as usual.

Why is every leftist/"liberal" anti-capitalist socialist I've known for the past 50 years is a wealthy capitalist??? Paradox!

[purpleland]

I forgot to say

M E R R Y
C H R I S T M A S ,
J I M ~~~ and to your family ~~~

[af_vet_rr]

Power corrupts!

That's what it comes down to...some politicians would rather side with their fellow politicians than with the people.

This would also help with keeping viable third parties down, something both parties are very much interested in. In the age of the internet, so to speak, a third party has a much greater chance of getting organized and getting support than in times past.

Even keeping "mavericks" out of the main parties would be enough of the benefit for the mainline party members - look at how hard they worked to make sure Kerry was the candidate over Dean, and yet Dean was still able to organize a fairly good size little grass-roots movement, enough to propel him into the DNC leadership.

The fact is, the more that the government can regulate free speech, especially that speech they deemed to be political/election-related, the more they can work to insure that only they win the elections and go up against who they choose.