|
|
Liberals up in
arms: McCain-Feingold not working out like
they intended
by Jim Babka
Life is interesting, isn't it? Why, just a few months ago,
liberal groups were joining hands and singing folk songs,
hailing John McCain, Russ Feingold, and the other
incumbents for "saving democracy from the clutches of
special interests" with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
of 2002 (BCRA). MoveOn was one of those groups.
But now, MoveOn has a new problem. And a well-written and
highly accurate essay, written by the FEC Working Group and
published by MoveOn illustrates how awful this new problem
is.
http://www.moveon.org/news/fec-gag.html
{You'll want to scroll down to the EXAMPLES section}
For reasons that will become obvious in a moment, "I feel
their pain."
Here's their problem. They have a $5 million donor. He's
helped them finance a bevy of anti-Bush ads. But thanks to
McCain-Feingold, they're seeing their rights trimmed by a
proposed set of rules coming from the bureaucracy empowered
to oversee the BCRA - the Federal Election Commission
(FEC).
OK, to be fair to them, they didn't really expect the
Republicans to actually ask the FEC to use this newfound
power in such heinous ways. After all, whatever happened to
free speech and free press?
Good question!
I feel their pain because I was president of
RealCampaignReform.org (RCR). RCR challenged the BCRA all
the way to the US Supreme Court (Paul v. FEC). We failed to
overturn the law. But our plaintiff group took the most
principled stand (of the 11 total groups). It appears we
have influenced some of the Justices, resulting in some
wonderful dissenting opinions. Perhaps some future Court
can use these inspired dissents to correct this abhorrent
ruling.
But now, MoveOn wants to rewrite history. Here's a direct
quote,
"Nothing in the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law or
the Supreme Court's decision upholding it provides any
basis for these rules. That law is only about banning
federal candidates from using unregulated contributions
("soft money"), and banning political parties from doing
so, because of their close relationship to those
candidates. It's clear that, with one exception relating
to running broadcast ads close to an election, the new
law wasn't supposed to change what independent nonprofit
interest groups can do, including political
organizations (527's) that have never before been
subject to regulation by the FEC."
That's just not accurate.
And I should know. In addition to being a plaintiff in the
BCRA case, RCR built the most comprehensive web-site on the
worldwide web for the pro-1st Amendment side in the area of
campaign finance reform. We filed two amicus briefs with
the U.S. Supreme Court arguing for Free Press rights. We
lobbied the U.S. House when they were debating their
version of this law - Shays-Meehan - generating over 3,000
letters to Congress.
But don't take my word for it. Let's flash back a wee bit.
Senator John McCain (sponsor of BCRA) and his allies in the
Senate wanted an end to what they called "sham issue ads."
These were ads by independent groups, like MoveOn, that
criticized incumbents. That was Title II of this law.
And what was the alleged justification for Title II as
argued by the McCainanites? Non-profit groups serve as
"conduits" for getting around hard money limits.
The left-wing McCainanites (money in politics is the root
of evil crowd) argued that there was a Hydraulic Principle
in campaign finance. The Hydraulic Principle is that water
will seep out of a crack on a hydraulic cylinder.
Similarly, if limits are placed on political parties (Title
I of the law), then it would seep to other places,
including non-profit groups (like MoveOn).
The Court explicitly stated that such an assumption was
"reasonable."
For three years RCR pointed out over and over, that there
would be what MoveOn is now calling a "chilling effect" on
free speech in campaigns.
But MoveOn is about creating utopian visions through big
government. Their response was predictable. They're asking
the FEC bureaucracy to enforce the law in the utopian
method they had intended for it.
THE DICTATOR FALLACY
But as David Bergland said, "Utopia is not an option."
MoveOn has fallen for the Dictator Fallacy.
The Dictator Fallacy is the belief that the law will be
implemented in just the way you intended. But this is just
plain silly.
First, the legislative branch is going to haggle and your
perfect bill is going to be modified - perhaps
dramatically. There might even be a federal building for
Senator Foghorn in the deal.
Then the executive branch will get a hold of the law. They
will have every incentive to expand their power (more on
that in a minute). And the Courts may even get in on the
act, doing some unwelcome tinkering with your plan.
On top of that, people will begin living under the law. It
should come as no surprise that Republicans, most of whom
opposed the law, have seized the opportunity to use it to
bludgeon their opponents. If you can't join 'em, beat 'em.
As if that's still not enough, the law will have a set of
unintended consequences - a boomerang effect. For example,
laws to curb drug use increase their spread to children.
Laws to restrict gun ownership increase burglaries and
assaults. And all this happens no matter how well-
intentioned the backers of the law are.
MoveOn may be content to call what they deem "shocking"
behavior by the Bush Administration "unintended"
consequences. But it's gotten to the point where the one
thing we can always count on when politicians attempt to
solve some problem -- like special interests in politics --
is unintended consequences.
To make matters even worse for our utopian friends, "The
power you give a politician you like today to do something
you want done is the same power that will be used tomorrow
in ways you would've never imagined or approved of by
politicians you hate."
The Dictator Fallacy means that no matter how well
intentioned you are, no matter how good you think your idea
would be, your new law to solve the problem won't be passed
by you; won't be administered by you; won't be adjudicated
by you. But you might get stuck living with your
Frankenstein creation - just like MoveOn did.
BLIND SPOT
What are the likely effects of the proposed FEC policy?
MoveOn has hit the nail on the head.
http://www.moveon.org/news/fec-gag.html
They're alarmed, up-in-arms. And they should be.
But when you get down to the Talking Points section, you
can revel at the naïve nature of these big government
liberals who are surprised that a bureaucracy is taking the
ruling of the Court to its logical and ultimate conclusion
- surprised that Republicans who opposed this law (the RNC
was also a plaintiff) are now using it like a club to beat
their opponents over the head.
Is it fair to call them naïve? Well, since when did
executive branch bureaucrats hem their own power? They
usually take opportunities, like this new law, to expand
it.
And why do they do so?
* This new law makes the bureaucrats more powerful, and
that's intoxicating to them.
* Taking full advantage of their powers keeps them out
of hot water when Congressman Busybody calls them
before some commission asking why they weren't doing
more to prevent something bad from happening.
SOWING THE SEEDS OF WAR
In this case, we're all left to reap the bitter harvest of
campaign finance reform - in reality, a scheme to protect
incumbents. It's simple sowing and reaping.
MoveOn understands that the war in Iraq is wrong. I'm
guessing most of their minions think the insane War on
Drugs and the war on civil liberties (the Patriot Act) are
wrong as well.
Why do they refuse to understand that politicians love
wars?
The campaign finance act was government's war against
corruption in the Nixon era. By the turn of our new
century, campaign finance reform became government's war
against so-called "special interests."
Politicians are always "at war," and the collateral damage
will always include your rights.
MoveOn is crying over milk they spilled. There's only one
consistent, just, and positive solution - Downsize DC.
HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO US?
A friend of mine recently wrote saying that we had
overstated our case for re-organization (for the new
Downsize DC). Everyone else was working around the
government rules, he said, like they always had. But as
you'll be able to read from MoveOn's report, we're not
guilty of overstatement.
If anything, we've understated because even the plan we're
implementing is only phase I. To truly overcome the
hurdles, we'll need to grow. We need to continue to evolve
at least one new entity and one additional project focus to
really overcome the hurdles the IRS and the FEC are placing
in our way.
But it starts with our new reorganization plan. And it
starts with you.
I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you of our
exciting new plan. It involves supporting good work on
Capitol Hill, like Congressman Ron Paul does. It involves
giving you a voice that can counteract the pressure put on
members of Congress by lobbyists and their party
leadership, like happened in the Medicare vote. It involves
using new tools and technology to do the most important
thing of all - persuade, convert, and recruit more
libertarians.
You can read the plan by clicking here:
http://www.realcampaignreform.org/trans.htm
If you would like to skip it and make a donation, please
click here:
http://www.realcampaignreform.org/donate.htm
|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|
RCR Report is the email advisory service of
RealCampaignReform.org -- a nonprofit, nonpartisan,
educational and lobbying organization dedicated to
promoting free and open elections and a robust,
participatory democracy for all Americans.
TO CONTRIBUTE to RealCampaignReform.org, visit
https://www.fbs.net/rcr/rcrcontribute.cfm.
---
|
