BY DAN
KENNEDY
Serving the reality-based community since 2002.
Notes and observations on
the press, politics, culture, technology, and more. To sign up for
e-mail delivery, click
here. To send
an e-mail to Dan Kennedy, click
here.
For bio, published work, and links to other blogs, visit
www.dankennedy.net.
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
A FREE-SPEECH OUTRAGE. When
it comes to campaign-finance reform, I've already gone over to the
dark
side. So please don't be
shocked by my recommendation of this
George Will piece, in the
current Newsweek, on the latest ironic twist in the
McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law.
It seems that an
anti-abortion-rights group called Wisconsin Right to Life may not be
able to run a television ad after August 15 - that is, within 30 days
of the state's US Senate primary - because the organization had the
temerity to name one of the candidates in that primary. That would be
Senator Russell Feingold, the Democratic incumbent and co-author of
the law that bears his name.
Now, Will has been railing against
the anti-speech consequences of campaign-finance reform for years;
I'm new to the cause (although I've always opposed
this particular provision of McCain-Feingold). Will also opposes
abortion rights; I'm pro-choice. But the example he cites illustrates
perfectly how so-called reform is stifling political speech. Will
writes:
The political class hates
having independent groups of citizens butting into the country's
political conversation. The premise of McCain-Feingold is that
elections are the private property of the political class, whose
members should be empowered to control the topics of discussion
during any election season. During the debate on McCain-Feingold,
speaker after speaker complained that "issue-advocacy ads are a
nightmare" (Sen. Paul Wellstone) and that McCain-Feingold is
"about slowing political advertising" (Sen. Maria
Cantwell).
Fortunately, the rickety
scaffolding of campaign-finance regulations is collapsing and
being replaced by wholesome chaos. Internet fund-raising by
candidates, and the gushers of contributions to the 527 advocacy
groups (named for the pertinent provision of the tax code), are
demonstrating the futility - not to mention the unwisdom - of
government attempts to impose a regime of speech
rationing.
Here, at least, I think Will's
reasoning is faulty. The 527s exist solely to get around
McCain-Feingold. If we had a rational system - unregulated (more or
less) giving, coupled with instant disclosure on the Internet - then
the 527s never would have been born.
Liberal 527s such as
MoveOn.org
and America
Coming Together are doing
excellent work, but without McCain-Feingold, the millions of dollars
they are raising would be going directly to political candidates. As
they should.
It's an outrage to the First
Amendment that an independent organization can't say anything it
likes about a political candidate at any time it wishes. Free speech
is free speech, and political speech should enjoy the highest
protection of all.
Instead, we have certified good
guys such as Senator John McCain and Representatives Marty Meehan and
Christopher Shays filing
an amicus brief in federal
court to keep Wisconsin Right to Life off the air.
posted at 10:43 AM |
0 comments
|
link
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
MEDIA LOG ARCHIVES
Dan Kennedy is senior writer and media critic for the Boston Phoenix.
