BCT Editorial – 7/2/06

This page was last updated on July 4, 2006.

Money talks; Editorial; Beaver County Times; July 2, 2006.

Before I get into the critique, I believe campaign contribution and expenditure limits are wrong. Even worse are laws – like the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (a.k.a. McCain-Feingold) – that additionally limit who can say what at a given time during a campaign. The only campaign financing law we need requires immediate public disclosure on the Internet of all contributions accepted by a candidate and all campaign expenditures. If Peter wants to give Paul’s campaign $2,000,000, that should be OK as long as the contribution is immediately reported to the public.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Top court’s ruling gives wealthy and well-financed more control over elections

“The chances of the United States remaining a viable representative democracy continue to diminish.”

[RWC] As a result of reaffirming a 30-year-old Supreme Court decision? In a way, this comment is correct but not for the reason the editorial promotes. While the editorial pushes the belief that not curtailing freedom of speech is a threat, I believe affirming any amount restrictions on campaign contributions and spending is a threat.

It’s interesting to note the freedom of speech supported and opposed by the Times. In its June 28^th editorial entitled “Flag flap,” the Times apparently felt the freedom of speech demonstrated by flag desecration was worth protecting. (I oppose laws to “protect” the flag as well, but I suspect my reasons differ from those of the Times.) Apparently, though, political free speech enabled by campaign financing is not worth protecting.

“The Supreme Court nudged the nation along that path in a ruling last week in which six of the nine justices reaffirmed that money is a form of free speech.

“The Associated Press reported that six justices rejected an aggressive Vermont campaign-finance law that set very low ceilings for campaign contributions and slapped tight restrictions on how much candidates could spend.

“The court said the contribution limit was too restrictive and that the expenditure limit was unconstitutional under the landmark 1976 ruling Buckley v. Valeo, which permits limits on political contributions but rejects campaign-expenditure caps as limiting free speech.”

“The court’s understanding of the importance of free speech is appreciated. However, when it comes to politics, what Buckley v. Valeo really means is freedom of speech for those who have the money to buy radio and television airtime.”

[RWC] Did you notice the editorial mentioned “money to buy radio and television airtime” but not money for newspaper space? I wonder why. Is newspaper space free?

“Our representative democracy is under attack on two interrelated fronts - gerrymandering and campaign finance and election laws.

“Because of computer-aided gerrymandering, both parties can carve out safe districts for their congressional and legislative incumbents. The result is a re-election rate for incumbents that would do the Soviet Politburo proud.”

[RWC] As I’ve written before, I can’t help but wonder if the Times was so outspoken about the evils of gerrymandering when Democrats controlled the process.

“Gerrymandering is aided and abetted by campaign finance and federal tax laws.

“Campaign finance laws allow incumbents at the state and federal level to accumulate massive war chests that make it financially prohibitive for opponents to challenge them.”

[RWC] Let’s say this is true for the sake of argument. How does limiting contributions and expenditures help a challenger overcome all of the built-in campaign advantages of an incumbent? Remember, all those well-timed newsletters, press releases, et cetera we receive from our representatives aren’t technically campaign expenditures, yet they serve the same function and we taxpayers pay for them.

“Just look at the Democratic primary in the 14th Legislative District featuring state Rep. Mike Veon and challenger Jay Paisley. The incumbent spent $823,000 ($143.95 per vote received) and Paisley spent $39,000 ($10.47 per vote received). Veon’s ads were all over the place, in effect allowing him to set the tone for and define the terms of the debate.

“Federal tax laws allow special-interest groups to set up ‘527s’ - so called because of the provision of tax code covering nonprofit, tax-exempt political organizations - to influence the outcome of races at all levels of government.

“Governing magazine reported that because there are no restrictions on donations or spending, 527s ‘offer wealthy individuals or well-funded organizations the chance to spend far more than the limits imposed on political committees.’ In effect, the money-is-free-speech ruling allows the wealthy and well-connected to create their own memory holes come election time.”

[RWC] The editorial fails to note the situation it describes is the direct result of campaign finance laws intended to “take the money out of politics.”

“The negative impact of gerrymandering and campaign finance and federal tax laws could be countered by an informed electorate. Unfortunately, far too many Americans are turning off and dropping out when it comes to their responsibilities as citizens of the United States. Power to the people? Only if they have money.”

[RWC] Unless candidates are free to spread their messages, how are we to become “an informed electorate?” Perhaps the Times believes we should rely on the mainstream media to keep us informed. I believe this editorial isn’t concerned about “[p]ower to the people;” it’s concerned about power to the media.