Candor and Campaign Finance
By George F. Will
Sunday, November 23, 2003; Page B07
It speaks well of Dick
Gephardt that he speaks so uncomfortably when compelled to speak -- as
he understandably would prefer not to do -- about campaign finance law.
He is honest,
and hence he acknowledges the incompatibility of the campaign law he
supported last year with political spending practices that may support
him next year -- and with the Constitution.
Howard Dean has opted out of the public funding system
because he can raise more money on his own than public funding would
provide, more than his principal rival, Gephardt, can raise, more than
all his rivals -- except perhaps John Kerry -- can find in the family
piggy bank.
And because Dean can afford to spend more money,
especially against Gephardt in Iowa, than is permitted by the absurd
state-by-state spending limits that come with public funding. Yes, the
government, that wizard of foreknowledge, knows exactly how much should be spent on political speech in each year in each state.
It is mostly Democrats who say they care about campaign
finance reform, but the fact that Dean has suffered no measurable loss
of support by opting out of the public financing system indicates that
not even Democrats really care about it.
In fact, it is arithmetically certain that most
Democrats, like most of the rest of the public, dislike public funding
of politics. Eighty-nine percent of all taxpayers refuse to use the
checkoff provision that allocates $3 to public funding of nomination
contests -- even though using the checkoff increases the taxpayer's
liability not a penny. Many more than 11 percent of taxpayers are
Democrats.
Gephardt, who boasts of having "led the fight for" the
McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation, says, as all reformers
do, that there is too much money in politics. Reformers especially
abhor big contributions of the sort McCain-Feingold supposedly banished
because they are corrupting or create the "appearance" of corruption.
But what, then, of George Soros?
That billionaire says he would spend his last nickel to
rescue the world from George W. Bush. As a down payment on that dream,
he has given, so far, more than $15 million to various like-minded
organizations. He can give billions as long as everyone involved
cynically pretends that the expenditure of the money is not intended to
"influence" a federal election.
This is campaign finance reform, the supposed idealism of today's liberalism: institutionalized cynicism.
When he was asked recently if Soros's spending is
"consistent with the spirit of the current laws," Gephardt's honesty
did him credit and did him in. He said: "It is not consistent with
campaign reform, but it is consistent with what the Constitution says
about freedom of speech."
It is to be hoped that the Supreme Court, which right
now is writing its ruling about the constitutionality of
McCain-Feingold, is as clearheaded as Gephardt is about the law he is
proud to have "led the fight for." Gephardt has never flinched from
saying that the First Amendment is a dispensable relic. A few years
ago, promoting his notion of "healthy" campaigns and democracy, he
forthrightly said: "What we have is two important values in direct
conflict: freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns in a
healthy democracy."
As the Supreme Court writes its ruling, it should
remember that six years ago Gephardt proposed to amend the First
Amendment with this language:
"Congress . . . may adopt reasonable regulations of
funds expended, including contributions, to influence the outcome of
elections, provided that such regulations do not impair the right of
the public to a full and free discussion of all issues and do not
prevent any candidate for elected office from amassing the resources
necessary for effective advocacy."
Some people may prefer the simplicity of the First
Amendment language -- "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the
freedom of speech" -- that Gephardt's amendment was designed to
improve.
Is it prudent to empower the government, as Gephardt was
prepared to do, to make the kind of judgments that James Madison's
First Amendment forbids -- judgments about what regulation of speech is
"reasonable" and what resources are "necessary" for "full and free"
discussion of the government?
Because the First Amendment was not amended by
Gephardt's language, the question now before the Supreme Court is not
whether McCain-Feingold is prudent but whether it is constitutional.
Gephardt, who "led the fight" for it, says it is not.
georgewill@washpost.com
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
|
|
_____Today's Op-Eds_____
searchDb('','')• GOP's Wins: Close, Costly (Post, Nov. 30, 2003)
• Culture and What Courts Can't Do (Post, Nov. 30, 2003)
• Iraq's Overlooked Women (Post, Nov. 30, 2003)
• The Bush Betrayal (Post, Nov. 30, 2003)
• Dissing Government (Post, Nov. 30, 2003)
|
| |
adHeaderAlreadyShown = false ;
if ( typeof thisNode == "undefined" )
thisNode = "admin" ;
|
