NRLC and Others Fight McCain-Feingold Restrictions on Free Speech About Politicians

WASHINGTON (March 8)The U.S. Senate will spend the second half of March in a wide-open debate on the McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform" bill, which is strongly opposed by NRLC and many other citizen groups.

Debate on the measure (S. 27) is expected to begin March 19 and to consume two weeks. The leading opponent of the bill, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), says that he expects the Senate to vote on numerous amendments to the 38-page bill.

As introduced, the McCain-Feingold bill contains multiple restrictions on the rights of groups such as NRLC to communicate with members of Congress and to communicate with the public regarding what federal politicians are doing.

"These restrictions, if enacted, would further enhance the power of the institutional news/entertainment media to control what citizens are told about right-to-life issues and about the actions of federal politicians on those issues," explained NRLC Executive Director David N. O'Steen, Ph.D., "It is not surprising, then, that this legislative is being driven forward mainly by the news media, in advocacy coverage that most often fails to explain how the bill would stifle the voices of organizations that represent millions of ordinary citizens."

At a March 1 press conference on Capitol Hill, NRLC joined numerous other groups in opposition to the bill. Among the provisions of the bill that drew the strongest objections were:

* provisions to make it illegal for a group to discuss with an elected representative his "message" - - for example, how to best promote a pro-life bill - - and then discuss the same subject in communications to the public within his state or district (by defining such communications as illegal campaign " contributions");

* language to ban many types of groups from sponsoring TV or radio ads for one month before a primary and two months before a general election, if the ads even mention the name of a member of Congress (for example, an ad that says, "Please call Senator Jones and urge him to vote for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act"), and to allow certain other groups to purchase such ads only under an array of restrictions, including requiring public identification of anyone who contributes $1,000 for support of such ads;

* provisions that in effect require a political group to provide advance notice before urging the public to support or oppose a federal politician - - thereby allowing powerful incumbent politicians to take advance measures to block speech they don't like - - for example, by pressuring broadcasters not to accept ads.

NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, who spoke for NRLC at the press conference, said the bill would "one, disrupt our ability to inform like-minded citizens regarding what their elected officials are doing, and two, greatly impede our ability to effectively communicate with elected representatives on our members' behalf." (See complete statement, page 25.)

"It could effectively put our voter education and issue advocacy activities at serious risk," said Susan Muskett, government affairs director of the Christian Coalition of America.

Other groups expressing opposition at the press conference included U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, Business-Industry Political Action Committee, National Association of Business Political Action Committees, National Right to Work Committee, National Rifle Association, and American Civil Liberties Union.

In addition, statements objecting to the restrictions on communication with elected representatives and communications to the public about politicians were recently issued by several groups generally associated with the political left, the Alliance for Justice, OMB Watch, and the AFL-CIO.

The Wall Street Journal reported on February 15, "While endorsing the need for overhaul, the AFL-CIO issued a position paper opposing sections of the bill that restrict coordination among candidates, parties and interest groups, and that limit advertising by some outside groups 60 days before an election. . . .'Our objections to specific sections are strong,' said Laurence E. Gold, associate general counsel to the AFL-CIO. 'We will be making a vigorous effort to communicate our concerns to members of Congress.'"