Posted on 04/25/2007 3:17:18 PM PDT by Unmarked Package
As I have traveled the country in connection with my campaign for President, I have been inspired by the commitment of countless Americans to shaping the future of America's political system. Their commitment takes many different forms, from distributing literature, to attending a campaign rally, to contributing money to an individual candidate. I applaud this involvement, even if it is not supportive of my candidacy. An informed and active citizenry is vital to the long-term health of our political system.
Washington's back-scratching political class apparently sees it differently. A few years ago, they locked arms around a measure sponsored by Senators John McCain, a Republican, and Russ Feingold, a Democrat, imposing unprecedented restrictions on the political activities of everyday Americans. Initiatives that had been legal for as long as anyone could remember were suddenly transformed into sanctionable offenses, all under the guise of "campaign finance reform."
I have not spent a career in politics, but I know enough about the laws of this country, and the way Washington works, to understand that the McCain-Feingold law is riddled with shortcomings.
Let's start with something basic: the American people should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without burdensome limitations. Indeed, such advocacy can play an important educational role in elections, helping to provide information to voters on a range of issues. Do we really want government telling us when we can engage in political speech, and what form it can take?
Yet McCain-Feingold prohibits some non-profits from broadcasting messages that mention the name of a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or in the months leading up to the general election. This Free Speech Blackout Period – also called the "electioneering communications ban" – is contrary to the spirit of a free and open issues debate. It also has the perverse effect of silencing some non-profit groups while empowering special interest groups.
As syndicated columnist George Will has pointed out, McCain-Feingold "regulates the quantity, timing and content of political speech … making it increasingly acceptable for interest groups to attempt to advance their social agendas by limiting their adversaries' speech."
The original intent of McCain-Feingold was to reduce the role of money and special interests in our political system. But on this too it has been a failure. Political spending has been driven into secret corners and more power and influence has been handed to hidden special interests. What is really needed is greater transparency, and disclosure, of campaign contributions – not more restrictions on political speech.
The American people should be able to exercise their First Amendment rights without having to think about hiring a lawyer. But that is the direction in which we are headed. In 2004, the non-profit group Wisconsin Right to Life wanted to run grassroots radio and television ads urging people in the state to contact their Senators (which the ads mentioned by name) and ask them to oppose the ongoing filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees. A provision in McCain-Feingold, however, was used to argue that the ads were illegal. Rendering a verdict on what constitutes acceptable political speech is something for voters – not judges – to decide.
So who, other than lawyers trained in the intricacies of federal campaign law, has benefited from McCain-Feingold? Washington's political class. Restricting political speech ultimately hurts those in the greatest need of political speech – challengers to incumbent politicians (thus the joke that McCain-Feingold should be called the "Incumbent Protection Act"). Do we really need Washington politicians doing themselves more favors to protect their jobs?
America has a rich history of protecting speech, and these protections draw on the unambiguous language of the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech." We step into dangerous territory when politicians start eviscerating our fundamental freedoms in the name of amorphous principles, like campaign finance reform. If I am elected President, a top priority will be to push for the repeal of this deeply-flawed measure, and restore the full freedom of political participation and expression to the American people.
The topic is especially fitting today, as the Supreme Court heard arguments in an important free speech case involving pro-life activists in Wisconsin. The SCOTUSblog has a great round-up of the arguments. I especially liked Justice Anthony Kennedy's response to an exchange between the Wisconsin Right to Life group’s lawyer, James Bopp, and Justice John Paul Stevens:
Under brief questioning from Justice John Paul Stevens, WRTL's attorney argued that grass-roots groups want the right to speak out during campaigns in hopes of influencing even candidates that they can assume are not in harmony with those groups' aims. "At least people should have the opportunity to engage in grassroots lobbying," Bopp said, immediately drawing this approving comment from Justice Kennedy: "Is that called democracy?"
As you'll recall, Mr. Bopp is a strong supporter of Gov. Romney's candidacy.
Outstanding post! Hooray Mitt Romney!
Can someone interview McCain or Feingold and find out THEIR take on this case before the USSC? After all John did announce his candidacy today, and he might want to talk about the crowning achievement of his congressional career.
If you really want to do this, then start by repealing the 17th amendment and eliminate 33 of the most expensive elections that occur every two years.
That would just leave the 4-year presidential election cycle and the 2-year House elections, which IMO isn't enough to support national bloc-party politics.
The number of candidates running for President, plus the effects of the electoral colege, would limit how much influence nation-wide organizations have on grass-roots causes. The small constituencies of the 435 House districts would make it impractical for national organizations to divert national funding to small campaigns for mostly unknown candidates without having the larger and regular Senate campaign machines as the engine of bloc politics.
Repealing the 17th amendment would be the elegant campaign finance reform.
-PJ
I thought McCain and Feingold were the major flaws...
I like Mitt, and at this point he’s my second choice. However, this looks like another flip-flop.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/romneys-about-face-on-campaign-funding-2007-02-08.html
A review of Romney’s public statements from his 1994 senatorial and 2002 gubernatorial campaigns reveal that he once touted stringent campaign-finance modifications.
A Boston Globe article from July 1994 reported that Romney publicly advocated placing spending limits on congressional campaigns and abolishing political action committees (PACs).
-snip-
During remarks before the Burlington (Mass.) Business Roundtable in 1994, Romney spoke like the committed reformers who later enacted sweeping national reforms in Congress.
“I understand Ted Kennedy will spend about $10 million to be reelected — he’s been in 32 years, $10 million. I think that’s wrong because — and that’s not his own money, that’s all from other people,” Romney said during the 1994 presentation, which was aired by C-SPAN. “And to get that kind of money you’ve got to cozy up as an incumbent to all the special-interest groups who can go out and raise money for you from their members. And that kind of relationship has an influence on the way you’re gonna vote.”
Romney lost his race against Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). When he ran for governor eight years later, Romney again proposed dramatic changes to campaign-finance rules.
The Quincy Patriot Ledger and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette reported in the fall of 2002 that Romney proposed taxing political contributions to finance publicly funded campaigns.
“Mr. Romney campaigned in favor of clean elections, which provides public money to candidates for state office who meet strict fundraising requirements,” the Telegram & Gazette reported. “But he suggested an alternative funding method. Instead of providing campaign funds from state coffers, his plan would tap 10 percent of the fundraising of candidates who choose to raise money privately.”
Kevin Madden, Romney’s campaign spokesman, declined to comment about campaign finance proposals his boss made in 1994 and 2002.
Semms like Mitt has something worthwhile to say every day!
The two most fundamental flaws in McCain-Feingold are McCain and Feingold.
Bill
The important thing is that James Bopp's arguments might have a chance at gutting some of M-F! Another 5-4 win coming? Let's hope.
______________
Campaign Ad Restrictions May Be Loosened by U.S. Supreme Court
By Kristin Jensen and Greg Stohr
April 25 (Bloomberg) -- Members of the U.S. Supreme Court signaled a willingness to give interest groups more power to air advertisements in the weeks before an election, an approach other justices suggested would gut a vital part of a 2002 federal campaign finance law.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a7dcwgdH8Krg&refer=us
_________________
It's reassuring to see that one of Mitt's biggest supporters, James Bopp, Jr., is on the right side of life AND on the right side of constitutionally-guaranteed, free speech. Good sign.
Thanks for the post. This is very clear to me. I notice that Romney presses the right buttons in his choice of example too. He is saying all the right things now, and I’m grateful for that.
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.