BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

campaign finance Archive

Monday

19

March 2012

0

COMMENTS

McCain’s Campaign Finance Ignorance

Written by , Posted in Election Time, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

John McCain was on Meet the Press Sunday and used the opportunity to bash the Citizens United decision that struck down his anti-free speech “campaign finance reform” legislation. He claimed that this election is unusually negative – a similar claim that was made in 2008 and which I suspect he will make in ever single election until such time as he succeed in limited free speech – and blamed that observation on Super PACs and the Supreme Court for “unloosening” all money.

In so doing, he has confirmed that he is completely ignorant about the issue which he has made his most important, and in particular what the Supreme Court ruled. According to analysis from the Sunlight Foundation, the Super PACs which McCain blames for the perceived level of negativity have received 70% of their contribution from individuals, not the corporations and unions which were the subject of the Citizens United decision. In other words, John McCain doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Related Update: Reason offers Five Ways Citizens United Is Making Politics Better, including “competitive campaigns, funnier ads and greater freedom of speech.”

Wednesday

11

November 2009

0

COMMENTS

Meddling Is What Rewards Congressmen With Campaign Funds

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, Waste & Government Reform

Single issue organizations often try to piggy-back on the big issues of the day and gain publicity by tying major news items to their agenda.  I can hardly fault them for it, but when they use bad logic in an effort to restrict freedoms, I must call them out.

Members of Congress who noted “no” on health care reform legislation late Saturday night have received $2.3 million more in campaign donations from health insurance interests than those who voted in favor of the legislation to overhaul of the nation’s health care system, according to analysis released by a coalition of campaign reform groups.

“The health care debate shows that our campaign finance system is as much in crisis as our health care system,” said David Donnelly, national campaigns director of Public Campaign Action Fund, the watchdog group that conducted the analysis for the coalition. “As measured in campaign donations, it clearly pays to be against reform and with the health insurance interests.”

There are several problems with this account of their findings. First, the difference in donations for the two sides isn’t all that great. One group got $12.5 and the other closer to $10 million. Yet clearly they want to paint it as nefarious to donate to people opposing PelosiCare, but it’s no problem for those who support it.

Which brings me to my second point. They are wrong to assert that the “vote shows the need to transform our current campaign finance system.” Their idea of transforming campaign finance is to restrict the freedom to financially support politicians on the basis of their views, and they argue this is necessary by inferring, but not substantiating, corruption when it comes to voting on health care reform. But their claim that it “clearly pays to be against reform” misses the point:  it clearly pays to be on either side of the issue.  The $2.3 million difference between being for or against the legislation is minimal compared to the $10+ million difference between have or not having a piece of controversial legislation to vote on in the first place.

Whether they are for or against the particular bills before Congress, both sides are financially better off for having the “debate” at all. The incentive then is not to switch sides for money, but to threaten governmental interference in all manner of issues, and as often as possible, in order to create more anxiety in the private sector. Every additional “crises” that needs “reform” will bring out new stakeholders with buckets full of cash who want to make sure they don’t get shafted in the process.

Restricting donations is not likely to solve anything because both sides – industries who want favorable regulations and politicians who want money with which to seek reelection – are highly motivated to get around any restrictions.  New ways will always emerge for money to get from industry pocket A into Congressional pocket B.

The best solution is not to limit our freedoms, but to limit the powers of Congress. The fewer issues that are within their regulatory purview, the fewer opportunities they have to go around kicking ant mounds in hopes of seeing which deep pockets get stirred up.

Wednesday

9

September 2009

0

COMMENTS

Free Speech On The Rise?

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

That’s the hope following Wednesday’s rehearing of Citizen’s United.  SCOTUSblog paints an optimistic picture for freedom lovers:

Three Justices — Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — have explicitly urged the Court to overturn the two precedents that sustained congressional limits on campaign financing by corporations and labor unions. Kennedy and Thomas only seemed to reinforce that position on Wednesday; Thomas remained silent, but had given no indication earlier of a change of mind.

That lineup has always put the focus, as the Court volunteered to take on new constitutional questions in the Citizens United case, on the Chief Justice and Justice Alito.  While both have been skeptical in the past about campaign finance laws, supporters of such laws had fashioned an array of arguments they hoped would lead Roberts and Alito to shy away from casting their votes to create a majority to free corporations to spend their own treasury money to influence federal elections.  None of those arguments seemed to appeal to either Roberts or Alito.

This is a good opportunity to clear up some misconceptions about free speech.  NPR asks:

The question always is: Who does the First Amendment apply to? Do only individuals have the right of free speech? Or does this right extend to corporations and unions as well?

These are the wrong questions. The First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

NPR (along with the rest of the advocates for government regulation of speech) thinks the First Amendment creates a right to free speech, and that reasoned people can debate its scope, or divine through enlightened discourse just who that creation applies to.  The text does not justify this approach.

The amendment references “the freedom of speech” as a right already in existence – as is the case for all true rights – in the course of restricting government. The Constitution did not create the right, and has no more say as to whom it applies than it does the application of the right to life, or any other right.  These are natural rights that predate the document created to protect them.

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.

The restrictions placed on government in the First Amendment leave little room for debate.  What part of “no law” is unclear?

Wednesday

1

July 2009

0

COMMENTS

Will Free Speech Make A Comeback?

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Along with the Ricci decision, there was more important news that came out of the Supreme Court on Monday. Rather than issuing a decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the court invited new oral arguments with the question: “For the disposition of this case, should the Court overrule either or both Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and a part of McConnell v. FEC, which addresses the facial validity of Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002?”

People who know much more about this sort of thing than I have weighed in on what this means.

Institute for Justice:

The Court has set up a blockbuster case about Americans’ First Amendment rights to join together and speak freely about politics.  A majority of the High Court appears to recognize the grave threat to free speech posed by both the electioneering communications ban in McCain-Feingold and the ban on corporate political speech.  This case could mark a significant advance for First Amendment rights and will have major implications for state laws nationwide.

Cato@Liberty:

Justices Kennedy and Scalia, both current members of the Court, wrote dissents in Austin. Justice Thomas has called for Austin to be overruled in other contexts.  Neither Justices Roberts nor Alito is likely to vote to uphold Austin (or the relevant parts of McConnell v. FEC for that matter). But it would seem that either or both of them were unwilling to strike down a precedent without a formal hearing. That hearing will come on September 9 with a decision expected by Thanksgiving.

Almost six years after the Court utterly refused to defend free speech in McConnell v. FEC, the Roberts Court may be ready to vindicate the First Amendment against its accusers in Congress and elsewhere.

Monday

11

May 2009

0

COMMENTS

Monday

9

March 2009

1

COMMENTS

Citizens United v. FEC Will Challenge McCain-Feingold

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

In a couple weeks, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Citizens United v. FEC.  The case involves Citizens United’s film, Hillary: The Movie, and the law of political censorship known as McCain-Feingold.

The creators of the film wanted to show it on TV during the election campaign.  The FEC essentially said, “no, you can’t do that.”

The McCain-Feingold law bans the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general election. That leaves out old technologies, like newspapers, and new ones, like YouTube.

The law, as narrowed by a 2007 Supreme Court decision, applies to communications “susceptible to no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.” It also requires spoken and written disclaimers in the film and advertisements for it, along with the disclosure of contributors’ names.

The net effect, Mr. Bossie said in an interview, is censorship.

“I can put it in as many theaters as I want across the country,” he said of the documentary. “I just can’t let anyone know about it.”

Last year, a three-judge panel of the Federal District Court here said the film was prohibited electioneering communication with one purpose: “to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world and that viewers should vote against her.”

But that is not the only possible interpretation of the film.

For instance, in a brief in the Supreme Court defending the film, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said the film “does not differ, in any relevant respect, from the critiques of presidential candidates produced throughout the entirety of American history.”

Let’s hope the court takes this opportunity to take another bite out of unconstitutional restrictions on speech in the name of “campaign finance reform.”

Monday

22

January 2007

0

COMMENTS

McCain-Feingold To Get Another Look From SCOTUS

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

Perhaps there is hope after all that basic freedoms of expression will be returned to the people.

The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to revisit the landmark 2002 legislation overhauling the nation’s campaign finance laws, moving to settle the role of campaign spending by corporations, unions and special interest groups in time for the 2008 presidential primaries.

It would be the first time the court has reviewed the McCain-Feingold law of 2002 since justices ruled 5 to 4 three years ago that the act was constitutional. Since then, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who was in the majority, has been replaced by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

At issue in the case is the question of whether so-called issue advocacy ads paid for by the general funds of special interest groups and broadcast in the period before a federal election may mention specific candidates. A three-judge panel in Washington last month overturned that prohibition, which is one of the key provisions of the law known formally as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

“The stakes are enormous,” said Michael E. Toner, a Federal Election Commission member who served on President Bush’s campaign in 2000. “We’re watching this case very closely.”

The entire law should be thrown out as unconstitutional. The question of whether or not an ad attempts to “influence” elections should be irrelevent, though that’s exactly the question the courts are addressing. In practice, expression of all opinions “influences” elections for the simple fact that votes are cast based on opinions, and though opinions are formed based on a great many factors, one of those certainly is the expression of free ideas made by fellow citizens.

You cannot make a logical differentiation between campaigning and freedom of expression; the two are inseverably linked. Rather, if the Constitution is to have any meaning, they should be so linked.

. . .Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the Supreme Court challenge is “going to be a prime opportunity for opponents of campaign regulations to make some headway in watering down the standards.”

. . .What could make the outcome different this time, he said, is “simply the replacement of Justice O’Connor with Justice Alito.”

Here’s hoping.

Hat tip: Club for Growth

Friday

29

December 2006

0

COMMENTS

The Future Of McCain-Feingold Rests With New Judges

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

OpinionJournal takes a look at how Alito and Roberts might rule on McCain-Feingold.

A federal court decision last week upheld the right of citizens to petition their government–a right taken for granted before the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law codified speech restrictions. The ruling is overly narrow but welcome all the same. And if it’s appealed, as expected, the Supreme Court will have another chance to weigh in on Congress’s efforts to chip away at First Amendment free-speech guarantees in the name of “reform.”

. . .

Check it out here.

Wednesday

6

September 2006

0

COMMENTS

Free Speech Or Speech Free?

Written by , Posted in Waste & Government Reform

Warning: you are entering a speech free zone.

As of Friday, when the 60-day blackout period for “electioneering communications” by nonprofit interest groups begins, political speech will enjoy less protection than dirty movies. While a sexually explicit film is protected by the First Amendment if it has some socially redeeming value, an “electioneering communication” is forbidden even if it deals with important and timely public policy issues.

Supporters of this ban, imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, say they want to eliminate “sham issue ads” that are aimed at electing or defeating a candidate and therefore should be funded only by political action committees subject to campaign contribution limits. But since the ban applies to any TV or radio spot that mentions a federal official who is up for re-election, it also prohibits genuine issue ads.

Club for Growth has a list of all the big government Republicans who helped make this attack on free speech possible.

More on the folly of McCain-Feingold.

Friday

25

August 2006

0

COMMENTS

Campaign Finance Reform In Practice

Written by , Posted in The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

In Wisconsin we see exactly what it is that so-called campaign finance reform has really accomplished – the regulation of speech. Want to speak your mind about an upcoming election? Too bad, you can’t do it without court permission.

A pro-life group filed a motion Friday in district court to allow them to air a radio ad calling on Wisconsin citizens to contact Wisconsin Democratic Sens. Russ Feingold and Herbert Kohl and urge them to push the Child Custody Protection Act through conference committee.

Wisconsin Right to Life filed a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in the District Court for the District of Columbia to allow them to air the ad because the state is currently in the blackout period mandated by the McCain/Feingold campaign finance law.

“Because Senator Kohl appears on the primary election ballot, permission is needed from the federal court to air grassroots lobbying ads mentioning his name, even though the radio ad has nothing to do with elections,” said James Bopp, Jr. counsel to Wisconsin Right to Life in a statement.

It should make no difference whether they mention a candidate or not as it’s, if the Constitution is to have any meaning at all, protected speech in either case. The period leading up to an election is precisely when political speech is most relevant and must be protected. The single minded fanaticism of McCain and his ill conceived legislation has led to a system of incumbent protections that hinder, rather than help, democracy.