Nearly a century ago the deterioration began with the initial attempts to limit campaign contributions from “large contributors and corporations" which were supposedly "corrupting" the system. This was the same period that brought about “anti-trust” legislation, which has never been proven to be economically valid. These laws were all sham. There has never been a successful monopoly that has not been mandated by government decree. Ever.

In 1972 with the Federal Election Campaign Act set many further limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. Building on this, the next few years the congress expanded, and further defined these limitations, all further limiting the people‘s right to participate. Democracy was further curtailed.

The result was that people sought ways to get around these arbitrary limits and thus came into being “soft-money” contributions to parties, candidates and officeholders. Before long money was pouring in to exempted organizations and once again those that oppose “money in politics” sought to block these contributions. This brought about the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill in the year 2002.

Since money can never be, and should never be, prevented from influencing election campaigns, people eager to find ways to support their chosen candidate (s‘) discovered a legal loophole in the McCain-Feingold legislation. This was achieved through the nature and definition of organizations governed by Section 527 of the IRS code which exempted them from some of the provisions of that legislation.

As a result a number of organizations took advantage of this exception allowed by the McCain-Feingold limitations. Some were already in existence but in the aftermath of McCain-Feingold these organizations became far more important strategically. They could collect unlimited contributions and spend that money in a manner that was forbidden to other groups such as Political Actions Committees (PACs) -- which had previously had free rein.

It must be kept in mind that such free expression was the intent of the free speech provision of First Amendment by the Founders. The protection of political speech in particular was its primary intent by the Founders. In those days, newsletter publishing was the main conveyance of political speech. It was financed by individual efforts and concerns. While a far cry from the mass media corporations of today they fundamentally equivalent.

Thus the structure has changed. In contemporary times, because of the way our system has developed, to limit financing and how campaign dollars can be spent, is virtually the same thing as limiting the speech itself. This is utterly contrary to what the Founders intended. There were no “public airwaves” in those days and it is doubtful that they would have sought to regulate them as we do today. In reality the “airwaves” are a commodity like anything else.

Many people decry the large amounts of money that it takes to fund political campaigns these days, as if the sheer amount were wrong in and of itself. This ignores the fact that the cost of everything has inflated, not just political campaigns. Compare the salaries paid to high-priced athletes or the current price of housing to the increase in campaign spending, The numbers are on par.

The very system itself demands such increases. Television advertising, the main vehicle, is grossly expensive. Olympic or Super bowl advertising is at record levels. Why is it any different for political campaigns? Therefore, to be effective campaigns must spend tremendous amounts of money getting their point of view across. This is no more corrupting of the process, and probably a great deal less so, than legislative lobbying, for instance.

The idea that campaign contributions permit undue influence upon the process by large corporations, for example, is downright silly. Especially taking into account recent federal budgets with their innumerable business subsidies. It is clear that businesses and corporations already have all the legislative influence they want. They already have found ways around the limitations. It is the little guys that have increasingly less say about what goes on in Washington, meaning you and me.

If anything, campaign finance reform, which prevents groups of individuals from gathering together to advocate issues important to them, probably has the opposite of its intended effect. Most of the individuals that make up these groups cannot lobby congress directly. They don’t have the time. They are too busy making a living. Thus “the little guy” is effectively cut out of the process. This favors the “big guys.”

This fact is, this is what has brought about the proliferation of the 527 organizations. This “loophole” permits “little” people that otherwise would have no say at all, to express themselves. But there is a problem. An aspect in the McCain-Feingold legislation limits what these organizations can say, ( again, a direct violation of the First Amendment) to not endorsing a given candidate.

This limitation results in all the mudslinging that so many have criticized recently. Because of this legislation, the only avenue available to such groups is negative advertising. They cannot, by law, say anything positive about their chosen candidate. So they trash the other guy. Legally, this is all they can do. It is the result of the vagaries of the law.

The angst over that mudslinging has resulted in an absurd situation. We now have the President of the United States of America saying that he will go to court to curb the actions of all 527 groups. Thus we have the President of this nation saying he will actively work to curtail the very “free speech” protected in the Constitution he swore to uphold. This is simply inconceivable and is the unintended consequence referred at the opening.

What we have here is a far more serious a matter than it appears at first glance. Should the president be successful and actually limit or curtail these organizations then free speech as a whole is endangered. The argument has gone from opposing “campaign spending” to silencing the expressed viewpoints of given groups. This is the very thing the Founders sought to prevent. It is the bedrock of this nation.

So it turns out that the main objection to these groups is the content of what they are saying, not the source or amount of the money. The First Amendment protects the right to speak, notwithstanding the content of that speech. In other words, the nature of their message is irrelevant. It is protected. Or should be.

Yet, to politicians, it isn’t the message but the fact that some citizens have found a way around the McCain-Feingold limitations on free speech that is important. This is a momentous challenge. In this scenario, only those who have been approved to speak may do so. Only government sanctioned speech may be allowed.

This is an attack on the Constitution itself. These politicians want to curtail the whole free speech process. The very idea that a free association of individuals expressing their opinions in public media being suppressed by the government is precisely what the First Amendment was designed to prevent. It is the intent of the words, "Congress shall make no law . . ."

Thus, generations later, the attempt to prevent corporations and wealthy individuals from “corrupting” the political system has resulted in the virtual repealing of the First Amendment. Talk about unintended consequences.

It is puzzling that the Supreme Court didn’t overturn McCain-Feingold, as it should have. The Court has increasingly proven its decisions are divorced from Constitutional considerations and become political ones. This has dire implications for our Republic. Freedom has become an abstract, rather than an active principle to be guarded by our institutions.

Thus the real consequence of this political season may be the loss of freedom of speech for all Americans, since both major presidential candidates have endorsed this abhorrent policy in their own way. The next election cycle may see only officially approved advertisements gracing the airwaves. This will not be an improvement but a loss. And freedom for all, the real loser.

Don Newman, senior policy analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Hawaii's first and only free market public policy institute focused on individual freedom and liberty, can be reached at: mailto:newmand001@hawaii.rr.com

This editorial is intended to provoke thought, discussion and an examination of issues. It does not reflect official policy of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. See the GRIH Web site at: http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/

HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com

Offshoots

THE WAR ON POVERTY DIDN’T’ HELP BLACKS

Daily Policy Digest

WELFARE ISSUES

Tuesday, Aug. 31, 2004

Many claim the 40-year War on Poverty was responsible for the economic rise of blacks, but economist Thomas Sowell says this simply isn’t true.

Sowell says despite myriad programs intended to tackle poverty at its roots and to offer more opportunities to those starting out in life, the War on Poverty was far from successful. For example:

Black families disintegrated under a generous welfare system that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life. Government housing projects created for the poor degenerated quickly into violent slums, trapping countless families in a life of misery and despair.

The reality is that the rise of blacks began decades before any of these programs, writes Sowell. Moreover, this upward progression was not helped by liberal social policies of the 1960s:

The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. While the poverty rate dropped another 17 percentage points during the 1960s and another point in the 1970s, this continuation of the previous trend was not unprecedented nor credibly attributable to policies of the War on Poverty. In various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959.

Source: Thomas Sowell (Hoover Institution), “A Painful Anniversary,” Townhall.com, August 17 2004.

For text http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040817.shtml

For more on Welfare http://www.ncpa.org/iss/wel/

Sprout of the Day

"The terrific urge to prevent another person from making a 'mistake' must be resisted if liberty is to be preserved. The 'protective spirit' that leads a fond parent to prohibit his child from acquiring mature judgments, as he substitutes his own opinions for those of the child, lead the dictator to act as he does in 'protecting' his political children. There is no possible way to allow a person to be right without also allowing him to be wrong. The only way to avoid responsibility for another's mistakes is to allow him the full glory and reward of being right, as well as the full dishonor and penalty of being wrong. Only in this way can one person isolate himself from the mistakes of another, whether it be a Stalin or a neighbor."

- F.A. Harper

Grassroot Perspective...