November 2001 -- Poll after poll shows that campaign finance reform consistently ranks far down the list of issues that the general public considers important. Yet the liberal media and the political left regard it as the mother of all issues. Why? Because campaign finance restrictions could have a muzzling effect on everyone but the media, which is predominantly on their side, of course. In other words, they correctly see it as a golden opportunity to silence much of their political opposition.
Most campaign finance "reform" proposals would ban or severely restrict so-called "soft money." Soft money goes to issue advocacy or support for political parties, whereas hard money goes directly to actual campaigns for political office. The Supreme Court ruled that hard money can be regulated to prevent bribery or the appearance thereof. They also ruled, however, that soft money cannot be regulated without violating freedom of speech. But the left is eager to ban or strictly regulate soft money anyway.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." That means that every publication, every radio and television station, and every website, is guaranteed the freedom to say whatever it wishes (within reasonable bounds of decency) about any political issue. But the First Amendment applies, not only to the media, but to all Americans. A ban on soft money would restrict freedom of speech for everyone but the media. Is it any wonder the liberal media are so eager for such a ban?
Soft money is often used to buy advertising time. Advertising time is something that the media owns and sells for a market price. How could it possibly be fair to restrict others from buying from the media what the media already owns? If soft money is banned to prevent the wealthy from influencing public opinion, consistency requires that media itself also be prohibited from attempting to influence public opinion. In other words, it requires that media content be controlled by the government, but the First Amendment obviously prohibits that.
Media establishments usually attempt to maintain at least an illusion of neutrality. Rarely do they run outright advertisements with regard to controversial political issues. However, subtle biases are often more influential than open advocacy. Viewers naturally tend to be skeptical of paid advertisements, which have very little time to make their case anyway. Documentary and analysis programs, on the other hand, have plenty of time to inform -- or deceive. A ban on soft money would essentially take away what little opportunity everyone else has to compete with the media for influence on public opinion.
What is alarming is that even supposedly non-partisan organizations, such as the League of Women Voters, are willing to ban free speech in the name of campaign finance reform. They argue that soft money can be used for thinly veiled campaign ads disguised as issue advocacy. Their official position is that issue advocacy ads should be banned for several weeks or months before elections. Issue advocacy ads banned? If that is not a glaring violation of the First Amendment, what is? Their "cure" is worse than the disease, and it should alarm anyone who values freedom of speech.
The entire premise of campaign finance "reform," that the wealthy should have no more influence than others, is laughably ridiculous. How much wealth would be required to have as much influence as, say, 60 Minutes? And how seriously would I be taken if I complained that my personal website does not have as much influence as 60 Minutes? Why is it unfair that a successful corporation can have significant influence through soft money, yet perfectly acceptable that 60 Minutes has the tremendous influence it has? If industry is to be silenced, then so should the television networks.
The left tends to assume that politicians on the right are corrupted by money, yet they routinely ignore obvious corruption of their own left-leaning politicians, such as Bill Clinton and Al Gore. In other words, the left is unwilling to even enforce existing campaign finance law on their own politicians, but they are willing to pass unconstitutional new laws to stop their political opponents. When American corporations contribute, they are "buying influence," but when Clinton and Gore are caught red-handed receiving illegal contributions from the communist government of China, we need to "move on" to the "real issues." Never mind the massive givaways of nuclear technology to China (which were barely reported by the liberal media, of course).
Although the problem is greatly exaggerated by the left, our political system is corrupted by money to some extent, of course. The answer, however, is not to retract one of the most important freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. The answer is to elect leaders with integrity who understand that industry wouldn't have so much incentive to "buy them off" if the government weren't so powerful. Rest assured that industry does not want to spend any more money than necessary. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The greatest security against the introduction of corrupt practices and principles into our government is to make [Congress keep] ... public expenses down to their minimum."
Pewgate: The Battle of the Blogosphere
The Cato Institute: Money and Politics
The American Conservative Union: Campaign Finance Reform
The Ayn Rand Institute: How to Achieve Real Campaign Finance Reform