Campaign Finance
Todd Zywicki, of Volokh, has posted a brief acknowledgment of the fact that FEC Commissioner Brad Smith will be stepping down from the FEC and returning to academia. What caught my attention about this post was Smith’s letter of resignation, and the candor with which he conveyed the problem with current campaign finance laws to President Bush. According to Smith:
Political activity is more heavily regulated than at any time in our nation’s history. For example, in accordance with the law, during my tenure the FEC has assessed penalties against parents for contributing too much to the campaigns of children; against children for contributing to the campaigns of parents; and against husbands for contributing to campaigns of their wives. We have required citizens to respond to complaints for the display of homemade signs supporting a candidate. These are just a few examples: the Commission’s regulations take up nearly 400 pages of fine print. I urge you to consider the effects of regulation on grassroots, citizen political activity when proposals arise for still more regulation.
No doubt. I know this serves as a stand-by talking point–generally used by Republicans who are annoyed with John McCain–but it’s seriously troubling that what was intended to rein in the power of big business and labor is actually limiting the political speech of individuals who have little or nothing to do with either. If anything, there’s been a failure to effectively convey the concept that what is ultimately at issue is the ability of US citizens to engage in political speech. It seems to me that the spirit of Smith’s letter, along with grass-roots dissemination of individual accounts of ridiculous over-regulation, with the help of people like Smith, could be used to mount a successful campaign against the anti-political speech laws.
4 Responses to “Campaign Finance”
It is a bill that a better President would have vetoed. A better President would not have signed it.
But do you actually deny that when you equate the ability to contribute large sums of money to campaigns you are basically saying that the wealthy deserve to have in effect a greater right to more political speech than the poor or middle class?
Jim,
If George Soros wants to spend millions of dollars buying TV time, to then place commercials that express his preference for Democratic candidates, then he should have the liberty to do that. If it is a violation of the First Amendment to prevent your next door neighboor from purchasing an ad in the NY Times supporting John Kerry, then it is just as unconstitutional to place the same restriction on Bill Gates. (Or, even worse . . . Rupert Murdoch.)
A well-intended set of laws, born of a desire to curb political corruption, have evolved into a mess that equates corruption with political speech reaching more than five people. The next step for the McCain/Feingold crew should be to prohibit any publication of political books within a two year window preceeding a federal election–Lord knows “Unfit For Command” swayed a lot of voters.
Make that “preceding” not “preceeding.”