Editorial: Politics over principle

NOW THAT the Senate has passed a campaign finance reform bill similar to a House-approved measure, President Bush has indicated he will pick politics over principle and sign the measure into law.

In doing so the president declines an opportunity to send a powerful message about the importance of the First Amendment and constitutionalism in a republic.

It's bad enough that the bill that will reach the president's desk prohibits national political parties from raising "soft money," the unregulated contributions that the parties spend on issue ads and organization activities. It would also heavily restrict the amount of soft money state and local parties may raise, and how they may spend it.

This will have practical repercussions that alone warrant a veto: the influence of national parties will be diminished, the power of incumbency will be further bolstered to discourage opposition candidacies, politicians will be forced to spend even more time raising smaller amounts of money from a larger pool of people.

But the most onerous restrictions strike at the very essence of free speech envisioned by the founders. They apply to the advertising that outside interest groups use to support or oppose candidates for office. The bill not only mandates how these independent ads are funded, it goes so far as to legislate when they can and can't be broadcast.

That would appear to violate the First Amendment, which states: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..."

Considering that the Supreme Court in 1976 ruled that paid political speech is fundamentally the kind of speech protected by the First Amendment, the advertising restrictions in the current campaign finance bill would seem to rest on very shaky constitutional grounds.

The president should veto a bill that flagrantly supresses public participation in the political process.

Indeed, Mr. Bush in the past has vowed to oppose any reform bill that didn't match his principles, which included no restrictions on advertising.

However, knowing that campaign finance reform is popular with the public (and especially so with the national media), Mr. Bush apparently has had a change of heart. He acknowledges the bill is "flawed" and that it "does present some legitimate constitutional questions," but he says he will sign it anyway.

Perhaps he, like many who voted for the bill, assumes that the Supreme Court will groom the bill of its unconstitutionalities much the way apes pick lice off each other's backs, and make it all right in the end.

This thinking relies on the court doing the right thing and striking down the measure. But what if it doesn't?

The court has been wrong before. It's not difficult to imagine a narrow 5-4 decision abrogating the First Amendment for some misguided utilitarian political purpose (the need to remove an appearance of corruption in the system supercedes the rights of a relative few to broadcast their opinion).

Aside from being risky, such a Bush strategy would send a disturbing signal about the separation of powers and the role of the Constitution in lawmaking. It basically absolves the executive and legislatitive branches -- whose officers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution -- of judging what is constitutional and instead completely cedes that responsibility to nine robed masters in the Supreme Court.

Protecting the Constitution is a shared power, not the sole province of an unelected elite. The founders intended the Constitution to belong to all of us, not just the judiciary.

If supporters of the campaign finance reform bill truly believed their measures are constitutional, then they could vote for it with clear consciences.

But it is the height of cynicism -- the kind of cynicism about politics the bill purports to combat -- for a legislator to vote for (or a president to sign) a bill he believes doesn't pass constitutional muster, but assumes will get struck down by the Supreme Court. He reaps the political benefits while having his rear covered by the court. Talk about checking your responsibiliity at the door.

Lawmakers swear an oath to the Constitution, not the court. President Bush should summon the courage of his convictions -- and his interpretation of the First Amendment -- and veto this campaign finance reform bill.

I suggest that every politician that voted for this measure should be impeached and removed from office.

Have the RINO's finally gone to far?

We would get rid of all of the Democrats and the worst of the Republicans, and then we could start over. If we make it clear to all politicians that they are under obligation to uphold the Constitution we would wind up with better legislation.

This issue is perfect for Bush to veto, then scold the congress for submitting unconstitutional legislation. It's a win win. He appeals to his base, and it fires a shot across the congressional bow that he won't tolerate this kind of garbage legislation. Even if congress is dumb enough to overide, it's very likely the SCOTUS will overturn the bill, and Bush can say I told you so. Why is Bush so eager to please his political opponents? To me, he's becoming McCain-like in his attraction to be a Democrat. Very disurbing.

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.