Money talks, especially in campaigns

Got free speech? It's a wonderful thing, isn't it? Cherish it while you have it -- McCain-Feingold is on the way. If the current version of that U.S. Senate bill is passed, a large portion of Americans' free speech rights could disappear overnight. If you hate reading about campaign finance laws, read no further: That's it in a nutshell. And America should be outraged. \nThe McCain-Feingold bill, sponsored by John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) would ban soft money contributions to parties. The term "soft money" refers to donations by groups that aren't typically allowed to donate to campaigns, such as corporations and unions. Individuals are also allowed to donate to parties. These unlimited and unregulated donations are legal through a loophole created by the Federal Election Commission and are often in excess of $500,000 or $1 million. \nThis soft money is said to buy influence with candidates, although it goes to party treasuries. The bill also targets advertising for political candidates by unions, corporations and other third parties, such as advocacy groups. \nThe arguments against McCain-Feingold are too important to ignore. At the political level, this is an institutionalization of political correctness, the virus that still infects campuses such as IU. Now the censor virus has worked its way up to the U.S. Capitol, finding eager hosts in unscrupulous and egotistical politicians who seek to beat their chests and posture as ethical saviors. And while McCain is a Republican, there is no doubt the genesis of McCain-Feingold was nurtured in the censoring womb of the left. \nIt is a virus created by a socialist tendency in the left that grows increasingly frustrated if government does not control the means of production. The people of America clearly prefer the free market with limited government. So it's little wonder that most of the groups that support McCain-Feingold are quasi-socialist groups such as Ralph Nader's Public Interest Research Group and Common Cause, which is run by the former Democratic attorney general of Massachusetts.\nIf you can't beat them at the ballot box, they conspire, take away their lobbying rights and their political expression. Then government agencies such as a new, stronger Federal Election Commission -- seemingly modeled after the Politburo -- can "manage" and "regulate" what campaigns can raise and spend -- even what they can talk about in advertisements.\nMcCain-Feingold does more than just limit donations to non-candidates. It attacks speech offensive to the governing class.\nJust rhetoric? Consider this: an amendment supported by McCain and buried in the details would keep the National Advancement for the Association of Colored People from running ads against white supremacist David Duke should he run for president, even if they avoided code words like "vote for" or "oppose." The amendment kicks in 30 days before a primary and a shocking 60 days before a general election, unless appropriate Federal Election Commission papers are filed and strict financial limits are followed. \nIn reality, McCain-Feingold will probably never happen, as the courts will freeze it immediately once it is tested, then throw it out. The First Amendment gives equal protection to the Republicans, the Democrats, environmental extremists, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and The New York Times. \nIndeed, our founding fathers never meant for the government to issue press credentials: The First Amendment applies to all citizens, media or not. \nThe Supreme Court's Bellotti decision clarified the rights of active business and other groups, equating them with newspapers. Under the Politburo-like rules of McCain-Feingold, that would change. The so-called "press" and "media" have been exempted from McCain-Feingold. When a newspaper endorses a candidate, it will carry no contributory value. \nCritics see the weakness and hypocrisy in this. If media corporations can grow and absorb one another, disseminating their opinions and "conventional wisdoms" any time they please, why can't the Republican or Democratic parties raise as much money as they please to aid and assist their candidates, some of whom are incumbents and some of whom are ignored challengers in need of support? \nParties are invaluable organizations that grow democracy and keep elections competitive. Most damaging to the argument of speech regulators, they are private entities and advocacy groups that never appear on the ballot, although if you listen to the media you would think they and theirplatforms are U.S. agencies subject to official oversight. \nThe urge to regulate and punish political speech is an out-of-control addiction of government and the left. FOX News reported Monday night that Sen. Robert Byrd (D --W.Va.) has offered up a proposal to amend the Constitution to make McCain-Feingold "legitimate."\nThat's a huge concession; it should be viewed as a shameful admission. Noting the constitutional and thus the intellectual impoverishment of their prized campaign finance reform, supporters have conceded the Supreme Court might step in if President George W. Bush doesn't exercise his veto. You can be sure they care more about "inside baseball" than your tax rates, currently a peacetime record. \nThat's the problem with Washington -- not that there's too much money in campaigns, but too little brainpower spent on bills.