Speech Crime in Wisconsin

[Tigermike 3,096]

Speech Crime in Wisconsin

The rickety scaffolding of campaign-finance laws is collapsing into wholesome chaos. The 2008 campaign may be quite different

By George F. Will

Newsweek

Aug. 16 issue - The people who produced the new campaign-finance law—the interest groups that lobbied for McCain-Feingold, the legislators who passed it, the Supreme Court justices who declared it compatible with the First Amendment—will say it was not expected to work this way. But it was.

It was always about expanding the regulation by government, meaning by the political class, of speech inconvenient to the political class. Consider the case of McCain-Feingold against Wisconsin Right to Life.

WRL is one of the many thousands of advocacy organizations through which Americans cooperate to advance their social agendas. It is through such not-for-profit corporations, ranging from the ACLU to the NRA, that millions of citizens refute the worrywarts who say that Americans are gripped by civic apathy—"bowling alone" and all that. But McCain-Feingold's message to such Americans is: Speak less, and speak not at all when it matters most—when people are paying attention because elections are near.

WRL is distressed by Democratic U.S. senators' blocking confirmation votes on many of President Bush's judicial nominees, often because the Democrats consider the nominees unsympathetic to abortion rights. WRL wants the people of Wisconsin to urge their U.S. senators, Russell Feingold and Herb Kohl, both Democrats, to vote to allow up or down votes on the nominees. So WRL wants to run several broadcast ads like this one:

Pastor:  And who gives this woman to be married to this man?

Bride's Father:  Well, as father of the bride, I certainly could. But instead, I'd like to share a few tips on how to properly install drywall. Now, you put the drywall up...

Voice-over:  Sometimes it's just not fair to delay an important decision. But in Washington it's happening. A group of senators is using the filibuster delay tactic to block federal judicial nominees from a simple "yes" or "no" vote. So qualified candidates don't get a chance to serve. Yes, it's politics at work, causing gridlock and backing up some of our courts to a state of emergency.

Bride's Father:  Then you get your joint compound and your joint tape and put the tape over ...

Voice-over:  Contact Senators Feingold and Kohl and tell them to oppose the filibuster.

Why is this exercise of free speech a problem? Because it mentions Feingold.

The McCain-Feingold law makes it a crime to use corporate funds—the only funds most advocacy organizations have—to pay for any broadcast, cable or satellite "electioneering communication" that is "targeted to the relevant electorate" within 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. And it defines "electioneering communication" as one that "refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office."

Referring. That is the potential speech crime here. WRL's ad refers to Feingold, who is running for renomination in Wisconsin's Sept. 14 primary. So WRL's ad, which is timed to arouse voters in the closing days of this Senate session, seems to be forbidden, beginning Aug. 15.

Never mind that the ad deals only with a legislative issue, not an election. Or that it mentions no political party, does not advocate the election or defeat of any candidate and does not comment on any candidate's character or fitness for office. Never mind all that. The law is clear. Dumb, but clear.

WRL argues that when the Supreme Court held that McCain-Feingold is facially constitutional, it left the door open for appeals against the law "as applied." WRL argues that its ad is not the sort of political speech that McCain-Feingold supporters wanted to control. But it is.

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.

Because of the 527s and other measures adopted to evade McCain-Feingold limits on political money—measures most successfully developed by Democrats who favored McCain-Feingold—the 2008 campaign may be dramatically different. Then there may be two tiers of candidates—those who accept public funding and the spending (i.e., speech) limits that come with it, and those who do not. Only the latter will be serious candidates. Reform was not expected to work out this way. But reformers are often surprised, unpleasantly, by the consequences of their handiwork.

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

MSNBC

[DKW 86 7,499]

We actually have Campaign Finance Laws?

Coulda fooled me....

[bigsixfive 328]

We actually have Campaign Finance Laws?

Coulda fooled me....

What, 95 MILLION on a stupid convention, and you didnt know we had those?

Me neither.