Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Search / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

Free Press Rally – A Reminder of the USSR

By Theresa Fritz Camoriano

Back in my college days (in 1974), I spent a summer studying at Leningrad State University as part of my program of Russian language studies.  This past week, when I participated in a “free press” rally in front of the federal courthouse in Louisville, I was reminded of those good old days back in the USSR, when the average citizens were intimidated by their government, and all power was held in the hands of a few elites.

The purpose of the “free press” rally was to protest the fact that, thanks to our campaign finance laws, some people now are “more equal” than others when it comes to freedom of the press.  While the campaign finance laws were supposed to “level the playing field”, reduce the influence of large corporations and powerful insiders, and give the regular folks a voice in elections, the real effect has been just the opposite. 

Our campaign finance laws now put numerous, complex restrictions on the ability of people to advertise their views through the media, while providing an exemption for the institutional media (the “royal press”), which itself is made up primarily of large corporations, and which tends to cozy up to those who already have power.  The powerful institutional media is free to use as much ink or air time as it wants to promote its issues or candidates without fear of prosecution, while we regular folks cannot.  So much for the “level playing field”!

One of the participants in our rally was Richard Lewis, who was prosecuted by the government for seven years, because he had dared to run for congress in Kentucky’s third district as a third party candidate and received 12% of the vote.  The Federal Election Commission accused him of illegal coordination in violation of the campaign finance laws.  In other words, although he had run a very clean campaign, he was being held responsible for expenditures made by some people who supported him, despite the fact that he had no control over those people and had not coordinated his efforts with theirs.  Richard finally won his case, but seven years of litigation take their toll.  He got the message, and he is not likely to be so bold as to run for elected office again. 

Another member of our rally (dressed as the statue of liberty) was Donna Walker Mancini, who also has run for congress.  In her race, Mancini was careful to accept very few campaign contributions (keeping the total under $5,000), in order to avoid the reporting requirements of the campaign finance laws.  Of course, with very few funds to use for advertising, she never stood a chance of actually being elected and was unable to seriously challenge the candidates to take on the issues.  (She did, however, lose her job with the county as a result of her participation in the political process.) 

Why should the rest of us, who have no interest in running for elected office, care that Richard Lewis and people who independently supported him were prosecuted for “coordination” or that candidates like Donna Walker Mancini are intimidated from seriously competing in the political arena due to campaign finance laws?  The reason we should care is that we need competition in order to push the candidates to tackle the issues and to force them to act in the interest of the people.  Without the threat of real competition, elected officials will simply act in their own interest, plundering the people and distributing the loot to their friends.  In that case, it matters little to the average person which political party holds power.  No wonder so few people turn out to vote these days!

Our current campaign finance laws leave us at the mercy of the institutional media to get the word out about issues and to challenge elected officials to do their jobs properly.  Since only one television station and one radio station showed up to cover our rally, despite numerous press releases to a wide range of media outlets, our own experience shows that we cannot depend upon the institutional press to protect our rights.

On Sept. 8, 2003, when the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the lawsuit challenging the campaign finance laws, it will not hear the argument that these laws are an unconstitutional abridgement of our free press rights.  Congressman Ron Paul’s lawyers are making that argument in written briefs, but they have not been allotted any time to address the court on this issue in oral arguments.  Instead, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell’s attorney Ken Starr will spend two hours arguing for some modifications to the campaign finance laws on “free speech” grounds.  Unfortunately, even if the court accepts all of Ken Starr’s arguments, the law will continue to intimidate outsiders, preventing the kind of competition we really need in the political arena. 

View More Photos

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest / Search / White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN