I don’t know what to say about this ruling from the free speechers on the SCOTUS.
I feel betrayed by Congress, the President, and the Court. If you want some insightful or meaningful commentary from me, forget about it for now (and I don’t mean to imply my posts are usually inciteful or meaningful). I am going to try to make sure that I am one of the first people arrested next year for violating this law.
Emma
That will definitely make you part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Odd to see you post this. The way the GOP has prospered under the law, I expected conservatives to regard it a little more charitably. (Of course, I’m delighted.)
John Cole
I am not sure why you are surprised i am against this decision- I have been pretty consistently against the law from day one. I think people should be able to give and spend as much as they want, as long as there is full disclosure.
At any rate, just because my side my do better under a law does not make it right.
Slartibartfast
What’s more baffling is why Emma seems to think it’s perfectly ok to do things you regard to be unethical (or, in this case, unconstitutional) provided they give you some advantage.
Odd, that. I’m sure there’s a perfectly good explanation for it, though.
mark
I agree this opinion is a travesty.
Ironically, if the TV ads criticizing an incumbent are in place, all thos MoveOn.org ads we would be seeing in October 2004 are, alas, not going to be. When the left realizes that they are not going to be able to run ads criticizing Bush for the war just before the election, they should get awfully pissed.
At least, they are banned from doing so the way I am reading the opinions from around the web…
Sebastian Holsclaw
I don’t care how conservatives do under the law, it is a stupid violation of free speech.
The funny/sad thing is that many memebers of Congress voted for this bill with the expectation that the Supreme Court would save them from it.
Emma
I wasn’t trying to be glib. I have long regarded the lax way in which we regulate money in politics as the height of corruption. From my point of view, instituting a less corrupt system is naturally better–that it would benefit the GOP has a perverse, but possibly soothing, effect on the the way conservatives would regard it.
Lefties understand that limiting the flow of money may well damage their cashflow. Like John, that doesn’t mean we won’t take an ethical stand against it. I strongly disagree that the issue can be reduced to “money is speech.” One might agree with that in a vacuum, but the fact that there are no public airwaves remaining (despite the fact that we own them) means that commerce determines speech. Therefore, money is a lot more than speech.
I know no one here will agree that this landmark decision is good for democracy–but it is. It’s the best news I’ve seen in a long time.
Steve Malynn
Emma, all “campain finance reform” is incumbent protection. The only effective reform would be pure and immediate disclosure of contributions and contributors — open records.
As soon as the statute was written, incumbent’s knew how to subvert the “protections”, in a maze of non-profit intermediaries and issue ads.
This added complexity will increase both the reality and appearance of corruption.
Besides which, spending 298 pages to justify limiting what someone spends to express political opinion in 60-second sound bites and paid print advertisement is the height of Orwellian double-think.
Dean
Exactly which money has been limited? If billionaires can fund organizations for political purposes (possibly in violation of their 501(c)3 status), how, exactly, has the money been removed?
That applies equally to Scaife AND to Soros.
Do you really think the unions, or the industrial associations, won’t be able to get money into the system, be it running “issue” ads or running “Vote AGAINST Joe Blah, he HATES the environment”?
The more you push stuff underground, the harder it is to maintain accountability.
Emma
The real issue here isn’t what McCain-Feingold will or will not accomplish. It’s rather the precedents it sets. To wit: the Supremes have recognized this “money as speech” notion, in which money became a first amendment issue, has limitations. It also indicates, more broadly, that campaign finance limitations are legal and constitutional. Finally, it even sets limits over what kind of speech can appear at certain points in the election–another biggie.
John probably recognizes all of these as the main implications of the ruling–but we of course have differing views on whether they’re good or not.
Brian
“This is a sad day for freedom of speech… Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography…tobacco advertising…dissemination of illegally intercepted communications…and sexually explicit cable programming…would smile with favor upon a law that cut to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government.” –Justice Scalia, in dissent
Catsy
Personally, I’m in favor of campaign finance reform, but I don’t think it necessarily has to take the form that we have now. I do, however, think it’s a step in the right direction.
Put simply, money is not only usable as speech, it is also leverage–and the ability to spend money on a candidate with no limits gives vastly disproportionate leverage to individuals and corporations with a lot of money to spend. Or, to put it in simpler terms: George Soros has a net worth of over 6 billion dollars, and recently gave $10 million to ACT. Most Howard Dean supporters contributed under a hundred dollars to his campaign. Do you really want Soros to be able to have such a disproportionately high ability to affect the political landscape? If so, how do you reconcile that kind of influence as being even remotely democratic?
Merely having the sources of influence be open and transparent isn’t a solution when you can’t prove causality–Bush’s connections to industry special interests couldn’t be more naked and plain, and his policies (particularly the Medicare and energy bills of recent note) show a clear inclination to reward those interests–but as there is no proof of actual illegal influence-peddling, it remains merely in the realm of the morally questionable.
John Cole
Catsy- McCain-Feingold does nothing of the sort. George Soros is still free to spend every penny of his, as an individual, to say whatever the hell he wants to say about whomever he wants to say it about, whenever he wants to say it.
You and I, however, are not allowed to pool our money together in the form of political parties or 527 interest groups and say anything about a candidate 60 days out.
So, the law you naively think limits Soros actually limits YOU.
Catsy
John,
First of all, you can leave the accusations of naivete at the door. I’m fully aware of the limitations of McCain-Feingold. McCain is my Senator and I’ve had a number of things to say to his office. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying; please permit me to elaborate.
I did not say that McCain-Feingold is a finished product, but rather that it is–check for yourself–a /step in the right direction/.
My example of Soros was not an argument for McCain-Feingold specifically, but rather an argument for further campaign finance reform, and an argument /against/ your stated position that “people should be able to give and spend as much as they want.” Full disclosure or not, I disagree entirely with this premise.
HH
I’m pretty sure Al “for the people, not the powerful” Gore was in favor of this one.
John Cole
Catsy- You are making no sense. You argue against the individual having undue influence, invoking the example of George Soros. When I point out that this bill does nothing to restrict George Soros or those like him, you claim the bill is a work in progress.
All this bill does is restrict my right of association and my right to join with others to advance my political agenda. That you find this admirable is perplexing and that you so poorly mis-stated the actual accomplishments of this legislation is what led to charges of naivete, not any personal animus.
Exactly what is it you think this legislation accomplishes?
Catsy
Perhaps I need to point out the relevant portions of my first post. You are either ignoring them or missing their relevance.
Personally, I’m in favor of campaign finance reform, but I don’t think it necessarily has to take the form that we have now. I do, however, think it’s a step in the right direction.
I disagree with anyone–whether they be an individual or a special interest group–being allowed to dump huge sums of money on individual candidates or parties. While there are legitimate uses for 527 interest groups, as you point out–such as banding together to act as a counterbalance to individuals or groups with deep pockets–ultimately there are as many such groups which exert undue and imbalanced influence in and of themselves.
I also never said McCain-Feingold was a work in progress. It is a finished bill that has now been vetted by the Supreme Court challenge. What I said–see above–was that it was a step in the right direction. That may seem like splitting semantic hairs, but in truth it’s a profound difference. I believe that McCain-Feingold does not go far enough, and I believe that it is a step in the right direction towards true finance reform, which would limit contributions by individuals as well as groups.
Of course, finance reform could also go in a completely different direction, and I’d be happy to discuss it with you, but I’d appreciate it if you’d try to read what I’m actually saying. Both of your responses thus far have ascribed statements and positions to me which I did not make or take, and which are completely counter to the /first paragraph/ of my post, quoted above.
tom scott
In the days leading up to an election there is only one interest group with the monopolistic powers to exercise its free speech. That will be the big media. No wonder they supported this.
I wonder what the fallout will be on the blogs and the internet.
Kimmitt
This is still a shitty law which does not comport with my understanding of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
John Cole
Ok.. I understand your points. Now, I ask again. What has this bill accomplished? What is this ‘step’ and in what direction? What is your ultimate goal?
john young
I’d like to disagree with all of you, one way or another. Sorta wish I knew you, so you’d care!
I don’t know the tortuous history of freedom of speech judicial decisions, but I did read a convincing bit saying that “speech” in 1790s meant conversation; that the Constitution-writers meant a right to not be prevented from conversing with a willing conversant — not a right to harangue an innocent third party.
I also find that money distorts decision-making in a democracy, and more money distorts it more. So that probably puts me with Emma. But I agree with John Cole that this McCain-Feingold is destructive in that it pushes the influence of money underground. Full disclosure of who’s contributing isn’t for purposes of sticking malefactors in jail, Catsy; the best you can do is know, as a voter, who’s behind each candidate. See the Open Secrets web site, for example.
I’m not averse to campaign finance reforms in theory, but plans I’ve seen lately are bad. They’re a bad compromise between the starry-eyed and the self-interested. McCain-Feingold probably makes things worse. How about full disclosure of all political contributions & expenditures; and some sort of limited re-distribution of radio and broadcast TV time. I don’t even know how you could do those two things, and the more this gets driven underground by McCain-Feingold & Co., the more impossible it’ll be to have even limited knowledge of who’s putting up candidates.
Emma, some lefties may be campaign finance purists, but I’ve been reading about enviro lobbyist groups immediate plans for anti-Bush media buys. The exact loophole designed into McCain-Feingold. Why is this whole plan good?
So, back to the beginning, John Cole, I can appreciate your thinking the bill is bad news, but I’m unconvinced that it’s the job of the Supremes to be the fixer here.
And just to try to get your ink-jets pumping again, John Cole, I really don’t see why you should feel betrayed. GWBush and the Congress in general never looked to me like people that would let trouble tomorrow stand in the way of accolades today. Now, I did think of Justice Ginsburg as a big free-speech ideologue, so I suppose you could see that as betrayal. And maybe your own individual Congressman, the one who’s responsible to You (or of course, any you’ve contributed campaign $ to), gave the impression of opposing bad campaign finance bills but caved on a final vote, well, then betrayal seems more legit.
Oh dang. My brain finally caught up. You were in the Service, weren’t you. Okay, okay. Feelings of betrayal eminently justified. Y’all feel free to ignore my comments. Freedom to speak; freedom not to respond, after all. Plus I’m a slow poster. Cheers, y’all.
Nick
I honestly don’t see why any regulation has to exist. At the end of the day, aren’t the congressional voting records absolutely a matter of public record? And if you don’t like the voting patterns of your Reps. and Sens., then don’t you have every American right to send their asses home on election day?
Even beyond that, I just don’t see what’s so evil about the money. People love to throw around the NRA as some odious example, but the NRA represents a well-organized bloc of Americans (4+million, i believe) who are working towards a political goal. How is that bad? They should spend as much as they possibly can to make their policy directives take hold. Ditto Greenpeace. Ditto everyone.
Daniel W. Pendleton
I fail to see how limiting an individual’s ability to support a political agenda is “a step in the right direction.” It is, in fact, the complete opposite. It limits the rights of the individual to rationally expend one’s capital as one sees fit, and is a violation of free-speech. The government is deciding for the individual that he/she CAN NOT support a political agenda through money. How does this limit free-speech? The party one donates money to vicariously speak one
SDN
Actually, only certain big media are going to be allowed to publish. I’m just waiting for someone who thinks that Fox News is “an arm of the Republican Party” to apply this ruling to shut them up.
Harry
Kimmitt is correct this is a shitty law and absolutely violates the first amendment. Regardless of the nobility of the goal in this situation, that goal is dangerously misguided, and the ends definitely do not justify the means.
Gregory Litchfield
I second Kimmitt.
This law is blatantly unconstitutional, and this decision by the SCOTUS will be remembered as one of the absolute worst in its history.
john young
Nick, it’s not your fault, but it’s generally true that the highest spending candidate wins. Now, there’s more than one way to interpret this, but it’s not unreasonable to come to a conclusion that due in part to the unseriousness of the electorate, the government will be run by people with the most money. Some of us don’t like that result; to us it’s a distortion of democracy. That’s much of the impetus for “campaign finance reform” and I don’t think it’s wholly illegitimate as a starting point.
I do want at least full disclosure because I don’t wholly trust anybody’s interpretation of the implication of those giant bills they pass in DC and don’t have the ability to judge them myself. There’s a lot of effort to obfuscate. So, Nick, I wish I at least had better knowledge about whose asses I’m to boot.
I don’t have much problem with the NRA spending money. It’s clear enough who they are, what they want, etc. I have a bigger problem when legislators get all cooperative with those pushing accounting deregulation, say, or a particular import restriction. That’s where, to me, there’s a degradation of the responsiveness of a republic to the peoples’ interest.
Let me repeat that I nevertheless dislike this McCain-Feingold bill, in particular. I’d like you folks to find better tactics to fight bad “campaign finance reform” bills. (And maybe I can do more, myself). So, I’m trying to put out some ideas here.
Daniel P., there’s an inherent tension between freedom and fairness; it’s a yin/yang thing that makes the country. Individualism v Community. John Adams, “Atlas of Independence,” found Jefferson’s individualism rather fraudulent. Anyway, point is, I suggest there’s more a chance to fight lousy campaign rules if you don’t include the entire hard-Libertarian platform.
Another thing to consider trying. Many of my leftie friends just don’t respond to the “Freedom of Speech” angle. But if you put it in terms of the government deciding who can “Print” their opinions, and how many prints are OK, I think you may hit something. Easy, though. Go easy. “Freedom of the Press.” Let the newspapers and print shops print and distribute their opinions.
Next, consider the electromagnetic spectrum as a public good rather than private property. Be open, and say you’re open, to reconsidering what “fair” is, when divvying up a public resource. Broadcasters could fairly be required to provide time for campaigns. Like they seemingly used to be required to have kids programming and tests of the emergency broadcast system. Details of apportioning “public” air time would be tough, to be sure.
Last stir of the pot: Gregory L., would this be the first time that restrictions on political “speech” were ok’d by the Supremes? Just challenging your call that this is one of the worst ever.
David R. Block
The apocalypse must be near.
I actually agree with Kimmit.
Mito
One way to solve this problem. Anyone can air any kinds of commercials. They however have to also pay for equal time and ad positions for their opposition.
That makes it like it used to be on radio and TV where they had to equal time to the opposition.
That way both parties spend an equal amount so neither can attempt to gain by having extra money. Also their freedom of speech is unimpeded, they just have to extend equal freedom of speech to the other side.
Dean
Personally, I think the Apocalypse IS here, since I agree w/ Kimmitt as well.
HH
Indeed.
Emperor Misha I
Me too.
I agree with Kimmitt… The HORROR!
But I do, without reservations.
charles austin
Dear Mito, amongst the many failings of your proposed solution, your solution assumes there are only two sides to any issue.
John Cole
There are two reasons the highest spending candidate wins.
One is that the person is independently wealthy and can spend as much as they want on their election.
The second is that the reason the person spends the most is because he took in the most, as a reflection of the people speaking with their wallets and supporting him/her financially.
Guess which one of these CFR protects?
Steve Malynn
Kimmitt may be an unreconstructed liberal, but he “gets” free speach. Well, make that understands, no one “gets” free speech anymore, that is within 60 days of an election.
john young
I already had some success testing one of the suggestion I made this morning. I was just talking CFR with a well-educated, articulate, liberal. On freedom of speech, she explained how there was a 30 or 60 day close-out but otherwise speech was still free. I explained how I’d suggested here that Freedom of the Press be invoked. “So, will newspapers be enjoined from publishing news, or just opinions, in the last 60 days?” Stumped. I swear, I find myself brilliant.
John Cole, those aren’t reasons the person who spends the most wins. (Pay attention!) But I’m won over; this law is bad. I challenge CFR opponents to try to persuade folks. Just try.
Sebastian says Congress voted for McC-F thinking it would be reversed by the Court. Hah. That IS funny. Deference to legislature and all. It also suggests they’ll reconsider, after a pretend period to see how it’s working. Let’s try something less bad next round. Charles, Mito’s suggestion does have the problem you cite and it’ll never be perfect. Are you willing to talk up an imperfect improvement or not?
John Cole
I wrote that wrong John Young- I meant there are two reasons the candidates that spend the most have that much to spend.
Gary Farber
I may be wrong, but I think you’ll have a hard time getting arrested for this, John. I believe all that can happen is that you’d be fined and/or have a civil judgment rendered against you. I’ll stress again that I might be wrong.
Abu Hamza
Russ Feingold said yesterday on NPR News that this law was just a step towards public financing of all campaigns. Joy!
Kimmitt
Now, public financing (or some clever public/private hybrid) — that’s an idea I find interesting. And, you know, Constitutional.
Steve Malynn
Public financing, welcome to the EU.
NO thanks, political discourse is goofy enough, now you want to make it like public schools?
Speech, a “public monopoly” controlled by incumbents is where public campain financing will lead; see the government of France for a scary example.
Say no to Cheese Eaters.
Steve Malynn
(Is not Feingold from Wisconsin, Americas land of cheese?)
john young, always irritable
Feh. No hand across the aisle. My congressman, basic liberal, isn’t going to vote to reverse McCain-Feingold without some kind of political cover, like Mito’s equal time suggestion or some other tchotchke. There’s little point in me even writing him, without a viable alternative. Hey, McCain-Feingold was bipartisan. There isn’t going to be a bipartisan alternative to this CFR if y’all won’t talk to a Dem. Do y’all do interaction or just cheer?
Kimmitt
“NO thanks, political discourse is goofy enough, now you want to make it like public schools? ”
Yes, that’s exactly what I want to make it like. Open to all and providing a world of opportunity to those who would otherwise have been left out.
Aakash
I just had a Constitutional Law final exam yesterday afternoon. In another one of my classes, we had discussed the McCain-Feingold bill, and the fact that it was being challenged in court. Conservative and liberal groups had joined together to oppose that horrific law. Bush had said that he wouldn’t sign this bill, and when he did so, he knew that it was unconstitutional. His supporters were willing to give him a pass on that, and some said that the courts would strike part of the bill down. Now, things have not turned out as planned.
Shame on President Bush.
zane
Funny how I can look at the cover of a Jane’s Addiction album cover and read the first amendment to the constitution, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, NOT 2nd, NOT 3rd,”Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” and have it read perfectly clear, yet senators, the president(!!??), and the Supreme Court can all read it any other way. The terrorists should just sit and watch us destroy ourselves, because, folks, mark my words, this is only the beginning. God help us all.
zane
Funny how I can look at the cover of a Jane’s Addiction album cover and read the first amendment to the constitution, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, NOT 2nd, NOT 3rd,”Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” and have it read perfectly clear, yet senators, the president(!!??), and the Supreme Court can all read it any other way. The terrorists should just sit and watch us destroy ourselves, because, folks, mark my words, this is only the beginning. God help us all.
Lee
i don’t understand what is the Mccain-feingold bill is about?
Richard Nollman
I love the idea suggested by David R. Block. It is simple and elegant: “Anyone can air any kinds of commercials. They however have to also pay for equal time and ad positions for their opposition.”
The only problem would be determining “the opposition”. In the current presidential race that is obvious, (well, maybe not so with Nader in the race). But what about primaries or issues that have multiple groups with multiple points of view?
But, that said, can you imagine how refreshing it would be if you added the stipulation that the media would also have to present back-to-back ads thus eliminating any advantage? Every add for say GWB would be followed by ads for Kerry and Nader. I think it would create alot of interest and healthy debate.