RENEWED THREATS FROM CAMPAIGN FINANCE "REFORM"

The "institutional" media promote current campaign finance reform proposals because they would enhance the media's power by shutting down independent channels of information. Under "reform," advocacy groups, such as NRLC, would have to rely on the good will of the media to get their message out. Would you want to take that chance?

The "progressive" political elite also likes such "reforms" because they would effectively cripple the lobbying efforts of pro-lifers and other politically incorrect types and entrench incumbent officeholders.

So far, our efforts to defeat phony campaign finance "reform" and protect your First Amendment rights have succeeded, but the " reformers" are getting ready for a new assault.

First, there was the now-suspended McCain candidacy. It revived the media's enthusiasm for so-called campaign finance "reform." Senator McCain was an attractive candidate because of his patriotism and personal sacrifice during the war in Vietnam. He benefited from friendly and extensive media coverage that amounted to free political advertising, worth millions of dollars. Yet in the end, his "crusade" for campaign finance reform collapsed for lack of public support. This demonstrated lack of public enthusiasm has not deterred the media from pushing " reform."

Second, last January the Supreme Court upheld Missouri's low limits ($275 to $1,075) on contributions to candidates for state office (Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC).

Third, the alleged campaign law-breaker and self-professed " imperfect messenger," Al Gore, is making campaign finance reform a central issue of his campaign. That should give you ample reason to hold on to the wallet containing your First Amendment rights.

And finally, "moderate" Republican types, such as Norman Ornstein (The Weekly Standard, April 3, 2000), are pressuring Governor George W. Bush to accept a "deal on campaign finance." Incidentally, Mr. Ornstein predicts that his "real and realistic reform compromise will provoke screams of outrage from the Hezbollah of the Right, led by Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee and the Rev. Pat Robertson." It appears that Mr. Ornstein is not well. He has the misfortune that his reform plans tend to provoke polite silence rather than screams of outrage. A "resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute," he has a long history of proposing "reforms" that would enhance the power of political and media elites at the expense of the rights of ordinary citizens and their associations. The citizens of the United States don't need a speech nanny.

The following quote from Supreme Court Justice Thomas's dissent (joined by Justice Scalia) in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (3/24/2000) makes the constitutional argument against restrictions on political speech. Justice Thomas writes:

"I begin with a proposition that ought to be unassailable: Political speech is the primary object of First Amendment protection. The Founders sought to protect the rights of individuals to engage in political speech because a self- governing people depends upon the free exchange of political information. And a free exchange should receive the most protection when it matters most--during campaigns of elective office.

"I do not start with these foundational principles because the Court openly disagrees with them--it could not, for they are solidly imbedded in our precedents. Instead I start with them because the Court today abandons them. For nearly half a century, this Court has extended First Amendment protection to a multitude of forms of 'speech,' such as making false defamatory statements, filing law suits, dancing nude, exhibiting drive-in movies with nudity, burning flags and wearing military uniforms.

"In light of the many cases of this sort, today's decision is a curious anomaly. [T]he majority today, rather than going out of its way to protect political speech, goes out of its way to avoid protecting it."

This alarming observation by Justice Thomas should give pause to anyone who thinks we shouldn't worry about the current campaign finance "reform" craze.

In a short, but chilling, opinion concurring with the majority in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, Justice Stevens makes the "simple point" that "[m]oney is property; it is not speech." Thus, he claims that expenditures of money in campaigns are not governed by the First Amendment but by "our heritage" about property rights. That is like arguing that "paint is not art" and that governmental rationing of paint would not interfere with an artist's First Amendment right to produce "speech" in the form of a painting.

In the current debate about campaign finance reform there is a great deal of confusion about such things as so-called "soft money" (contributions to parties for purposes other than to advocate the election or defeat of candidates, e.g., to advance issues or for party building); "hard money" (direct donations, limited by law, to a candidate's campaign or a PAC or to a party for advocating the election or defeat of candidates); "issue advocacy" (e.g., legislative score tabulations or NRLC's informational campaigns against the "Freedom of Choice Act" and for passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act); and " independent expenditures" (e.g., NRL PAC's flyers urging a vote for a specific pro-life candidate, without coordination with that candidate's campaign).

Some of that confusion is deliberate. The idea is to taint all " unregulated" activity as an exploitation of a "loophole." In other words, when you exercise your constitutional right to unrestricted political speech; to join civic advocacy associations, such as NRLC; to "petition the government" (lobby); to spend your money to influence elections, such as making a donation to NRL PAC; or to donate to an informational campaign of NRLC--you do not conform to the rules desired by the self- appointed political speech nannies. It makes them angry. They want to suppress your freedom of speech. They are just waiting for Al Gore to be our next president and for the pro- abortionists to control Congress. Are you just going to sit there and take it?