"I Didn't Realize What All Was in It" [Congressmen dismayed by McCain-Feingold details]

Reason on line ^ | February 19, 2003 | Jacob Sullum

[aculeus]

The New York Times has a hilarious story describing how members of Congress are only now discovering, to their dismay, the requirements of the "campaign finance reform" law they voted for last year. "We sometimes leave our audiences in a state of complete shock," says a lawyer who teaches the intricacies of McCain-Feingold to Democratic legislators. The seminars elicit "a sort of slack-jawed amazement at how far this thing reached." A lawyer who runs similar sessions for Republicans says, "There's an initial stage where the reaction is, 'This can't be true.' And then there's the actual anger stage."

A few other snapshots from the story:

The new chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Representative Robert T. Matsui of California, who voted for McCain-Feingold, says he has been surprised by its fine print.

"I didn't realize what all was in it," Mr. Matsui said. "We have cautioned members: `You have to really understand this law. And if you have any ambiguity, err on the side of caution.' "

***

It turns out that the law also includes a provision requiring that federal candidates appear full-faced for the last four seconds of their campaigns' television advertisements and personally attest that they stand behind the advertisements' content.

Several consultants said this could prove to be quite a problem politically when the time comes to begin televising the kind of hard-hitting negative advertisements that have become standard campaign fare. As a rule, those ads at present tend to reduce the role of the candidate to a small line at the bottom of a screen.

"I think it was a total surprise to people who don't read C.Q. with a yellow pen," said Bill Knapp, a Democratic media consultant, referring to Congressional Quarterly, which keeps close tabs on legislative maneuverings here.

***

Members of both parties have been startled to learn the law's penalties. A violation of McCain-Feingold — be it a national party official's soft-money raising, or a senator's acting as a host at a fund-raiser on behalf of a governor — is a felony carrying a prison sentence of as much as five years.

McCain-Feingold may be an unconstitutional monstrosity, but maybe it will lead members of Congress to reconsider their habit of voting for legislation they haven't read. In any case, it's richly satisfying to see legislators worry that they might be tossed in jail for a seemingly trivial mistake such as speaking at the wrong event or letting your name appear on an invitation. This is the kind of fear and uncertainty their convoluted laws routinely impose on ordinary Americans.

[aculeus]

Worth repeating:

"Members of both parties have been startled to learn the law's penalties. A violation of McCain-Feingold — be it a national party official's soft-money raising, or a senator's acting as a host at a fund-raiser on behalf of a governor — is a felony carrying a prison sentence of as much as five years."

[Drango]

This is from the Onion, right?

[Brett66]

Well it's a good thing they're not troubled enough to read the laws that they they vote on. Maybe we can sneak a bill in that gives mandatory jail time to anyone that servers more than 3 terms in congress. The idiots wouldn't even read it.

[kitkat]

BUMP

[11th Commandment]

Many Freeper were upset that Bush did not veto McLame-Feintoad. However, Bush sent a clear message to Congress that he wasn't going to bail them out with a veto.... now we see how their lack of courage will hurt them!

[arkfreepdom]

Sounds like my response to some new reg. that the feds put on my business...."this makes no sense". Nice to see they are getting some of their own medicine.

[shadowman99]

Best line of the story:

"This is the kind of fear and uncertainty their convoluted laws routinely impose on ordinary Americans."

[baseballmom]

Haa Haa Haa

Bump

[Gritty]

There's a way out, and it's not too late.

They can pass legislation rescinding this law.

[Mr. Mulliner]

Wait, let's see how many end up in jail first.

[Jim Robinson]

Here's all a Congressman needs to know about campaign law:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Just say no to all bills abridging these freedoms and you can't help but be on the right side of the issue.

[lizma]

Well it's a good thing they're not troubled enough to read the laws

Long ago I did some work as a lobbyist. I was told they didn't have enough time to read the bills they vote on. They did have time though to be wined and dined nightly. I was disgusted.

[Sergio]

You've heard it before, but it bears repeating.

If the opposite of "pro" is "con", then the opposite of progress is congress.

Lets run it down.

The vast majority of our congress people have never brought a product to market or sold anything, yet they pass labor and business laws.

The vast majority of our congress people are not medical doctors, yet they pass health care and HMO laws.

The vast majority of our congress people have never been in the military, yet they decide the size and disposition of our armed forces.

The vast majority of our congress people are not teachers or educators, yet they pass laws regarding educational standards.

All of our congress people have no worries about retirement as they get their congressional salary for life, yet they won't pass laws allowing us a little control of our own retirement funds.

The vast majority of our congress people are or were lawyers, yet they pass laws that screw themselves.

So in short, they pass bad laws about things they know nothing about, and they pass bad laws about things they're supposed to know about.

Dear Lord, all I ask for is a choice!

...whoooo, I feel much better now. Thanks for allowing me to rant. ;-)

Best Regards

Sergio

[groanup]

"The vast majority of our congress people have never been in the military, yet they decide the size and disposition of our armed forces"

That is a good thing. Here is a bad thing:

The vast majority of congress lets the courts decide where we can pray, who we associate with, how we run our businesses, ETCETERA!

[AndyTheBear]

Well it's a good thing they're not troubled enough to read the laws that they they vote on

Apparantly the Legislator does not have time to read the laws they are currently producing.

Presumably the laws the Legislator is currently producing is a tiny fraction of all the laws that are active.

Moreover many of the laws that are active have been endlessly interpreted and reinterpreted by the courts.

Being an ordinary citizen, how then am I supposed to keep up with all these laws so I may humbly obey them?

[aculeus]

This is from the Onion, right?

A comment on the linked site says the same thing.

[Samwise]

Was it McGovern who after getting a real job in the private sector said that if he knew then when he was a Senator what he knew now as a private citizen, he would've voted differently?

One of the Dem Presidential losers said it.

He should take comfort in knowing that Washington is full of idiots who can't think or read.

[visualops]

Hoisted by their own petard.

[GovernmentShrinker]

This pesky Constitutional point will no doubt be brought up by one of the congresscritters who voted for this abomination, when appealing his conviction under it. It would be amusing to see a court apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel in such a case (prevents a party from taking a different position before the court, than that party took in a previous legal proceeding).