An Acid Test for Campaign Finance Reform
By Brad Smith Posted in Archived — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Do Americans have the right to band together and work to elect or defeat political candidates? I think so, and this is, indeed, the Acid Test for campaign finance "reform" and free speech.
Today representatives of SpeechNow.org, the Center for Competitive Politics, and the Institute for Justice held a briefing at the National Press Club to discuss SpeechNow.org's Advisory Opinion Request, now pending before the Federal Election Commission. (Disclosure - I am Founder and Chairman the Center for Competitive Politics, which, along with IJ, represents SpeechNow.) For those who care about free speech, how the FEC rules is no small event - as one knowledgeable observer has noted, the request, "could change the face of federal campaign finance law."
SpeechNow is a group whose organizers include Club for Growth Executive Director David Keating, Cato Institute President Ed Crane, and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association leader Jon Coupal, although the effort is not associated with any of those groups or organizations.
SpeechNow's premise is simple: American citizens who want to speak about politicians should not be required to register with the state as a PAC, and they should not be limited in the amounts that they can contribute to the group. SpeechNow is not incorporated, and takes no corporate or union funds, so there is no question of preventing corporate influence in politics. It does not coordinate its activities with any candidate or PAC, and it makes no contributions to any candidate or PAC, so there is no question of any quid pro quo corruption. SpeechNow is prepared to disclose its "independent expenditures," so there is no question of secrecy. The issue is simple - can Americans band together to talk about political candidates without state limits? SpeechNow believes that the answer is yes.
Specifically, SpeechNow intends to run ads urging voters to defeat politicians who support speech restrictions (usually in the name of "campaign finance reform") and to support candidates who favor free speech (including repeal of "McCain-Feingold" and other speech restrictive laws). These ads talk about an issue - free speech - but these are not mere "issue ads," as was the case in last year's Supreme Court decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. These are full-throated campaign ads.
It is worth noting that under the law, George Soros or Warren Buffett acting alone can spend as much as they like, without organizing as a PAC. But if 2 or more citizens join together to do the same thing, the "reform" community claims that they are regulated as a PAC and may not accept more than $5000 from any one person. For years, this assumption has gone unchallenged. But SpeechNow thinks it is an incorrect interpretation of the law, and further, that the FEC has never actually ruled on the question. Hence, this Advisory Opinion Request.
If SpeechNow is successful before the FEC, it will mark an tremendous expansion of political freedom for all Americans. Citizens will be able to ban together to amplify their voices in ways long believed to be off-limits.
Under the law, the FEC is required to rule on the request before the end of January. If you care about the state of free speech in America, keep your eyes on this one.