Having written about our country's need for campaign finance reform in these pages before, I was disappointed with Hemant Joshi's Feb. 12 column in The Dartmouth, "Money Talks," which oversimplified the issue and unfairly dismissed arguments against the reform bill. Though my words today may lead you to believe that I am opposed to Joshi on this issue, I am in fact a supporter of the Shays-Meehan reform bill. However, I feel it is crucially important to understand and to publicize both sides of the debate.
Joshi's use of a series of fictional would-be conversations between what presumably was a caricature of a Republican senator and several lobbyists whittled down our vague and complex system of campaign finance and political influence into a sort of evil exchange between people who have no regard for the well-being of their country. While even the author would likely admit that these imaginary quotations are an exaggeration of what actually happens, no one can deny the fact that many of those with money are buying influence or, at the very least, face time. That is why the House passage of the Shays-Meehan bill early Thursday morning was an important first step to making the government more accountable to the people and less accountable to the special interests.
However, Joshi's last line is disturbing. "Why are we even debating campaign finance reform?" The question was obviously meant to be rhetorical, but it needs to be addressed because many of us, including myself at one time, believed that this issue, like the war on terror, presented us with the choice of "good" versus "evil," and that those opposed to the bill were corrupt monsters who care nothing for the people they represent and the freedoms they enjoy.
Shays-Meehan (identical to McCain-Feingold in most respects) is an imperfect bill, and to say that the merits of an imperfect bill should not be debated does a disservice to the process and those who partake in it. What Joshi does not tell the readers is that parts of this reform bill seriously restrict the freedom of speech promised to us in the Constitution. Before the bill was passed in the Senate last spring, a handful of senators on both sides of the aisle put in a provision of questionable constitutionality that forbids "outside" groups, including unions, corporations and not-for-profits, from engaging in any political advertising during the 60 days before an election and the 30 days before a primary. The clause was entered specifically to derail the running of attack ads, which have permeated our campaign culture in recent years. The groups who release these so-called issue ads are often well funded and not without a specific political agenda. Among the ads in the last election cycle that were met with bipartisan contempt was a spot paid for by the NAACP attempting to link then-Governor Bush to the dragging and killing of James Byrd, an African-American man, in Texas.
Of course groups on both sides of the ideological spectrum are equally culpable. These ads detract from the substantive debates that many campaigns try to offer and most of us would like to see them disappear. But is the decision to restrict constitutional rights really ours to make? Who are we to tell the NAACP that they cannot run these ads close to an election? The First Amendment ramifications of the government telling organizations like General Electric, the Sierra Club and the AFL-CIO that they are forbidden from running any political ads during the time when they would be most applicable are alarming. I cannot believe that Joshi, an open and unapologetic Bush-hater, would tell a liberal interest group wanting to run an ad criticizing the president that they should be restricted from doing so starting in September of 2004 and running through Election Day. I certainly would not.
The true test of one's commitment to free speech is a willingness to let others engage in rhetoric you find to be objectionable. I am as guilty as anyone of wishing some people wouldn't say the things they say, but I think we have to closely examine the Shays-Meehan bill, many parts of which will no doubt be declared unconstitutional almost immediately upon taking effect. The fact that the aspects of the bill I find to be most offensive will most assuredly be struck down allows me to celebrate its passage, though I had the luxury of not having to decide whether or not to vote for it.
So to address Joshi's question, "Why are we even debating campaign finance reform?" I reply with the best answer I can think of. We are debating campaign finance reform because many parts of it are unconstitutional.