Free Speech vs. Fair Elections

Councilman Jack Evans, shown to the right, is in hot water. Maybe not as bad as Marion Barry, who has been indicted for tax fraud, but hot water nonetheless. Apparently, Jack Evans has been running a Political Action Committee, and handling the money and reimbursements himself. In English, he has been accused of taking money from supporters, and spending it on his campaign.

Say what?

The Federal Election Commission has developed rules to prevent rich corporate moguls from "buying" elections. These rules limit how much can be given as campaign contributions, and how much can be spent on TV ads and so forth.

Just to prove how effective those rules are, I challenge you to name a single candidate for president that garnered significant support, but was not a millionaire. I couldn't either. But I do remember Ross Perot, who tried to buy an election without a party behind him. Kerry had the Heinz fortune, and Bush is rich in the wealth of Texas oil. Even Cheney's got Halliburton backing him up.

The reasons that money still talks in politics are multiple. Firstly, would you vote for a man that was not capable of raising significant funds? If you've got the charisma, intelligence, and social aptitude to be the leader of the free world, you're not going to be flipping burgers at McDonalds at forty-five. Secondly, Political Action Committees (PAC's) can spend millions of dollars without being bound by the FEC's rules.

Over the last few elections, you've seen PAC's in action. As the FEC tightened rules elsewhere, PAC's grew in importance. Now it seems that PAC's, like Swift Boat Veterans and MoveOn are more vocal than the candidates. And that's because they are! As long as they don't endorse a specific candidate or break various other rules, they can spend all the "soft" money they want.

Most bloggers were completely unaware of campaign law until the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known as the McCain-Feingold Law, was extended to apply to the Internet by US District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Unable to register and comply with complex PAC regulations, bloggers who endorse candidates will be considered campaigners -- and subject to a candidate's limitations on campaigning. Fundamentally, this will legally prevent bloggers from endorsing candidates at all, to include quoting or reprinting press releases or linking to campaign sites.

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.

I think most people agree that money shouldn't buy elections. Major media conglomerates should not charge less for ads for candidates from one party than another. But our government has no right to prevent the public, or the press, from expressing our own opinions on candidates. Nor should our government restrict candidates from spending money to obtain airtime, in order to have their opinions heard by the public. Because while money may be the root of all evil, free speech is the foundation of a free society.

Labels: dc, free speech, personal freedoms

Permalink