In a recent editorial, the New York Times editorial board rejoiced that Republicans are finally coming on board to "plug unregulated campaign funds from big labor, big corporations and just plain big money." The Times noted that the need to regulate these funds was "obvious", however, the only reason given for this need, was subtly stated when the editorial said that "[advocacy groups] were strategically linked to the candidates."
Another popular reason was because so much money was spent this last election cycle-over one billion dollars. But so much money was spent precisely because so many believed the stakes were so high. America was to choose the Commander and Chief of a nation at war, and the chief executive of the largest organization in the history of civilization, the federal government; it spends roughly one billion dollars every four hours.
This editorial is a fine example of the editors at the Times putting together a conspiracy theory to shut down political free speech. The specifically referred to organizations are the so called "527" groups- named for the section of the tax code that governs them. Should these advocacy groups stay legal and unregulated? Yes. Should unregulated funds be allowed to flow to these organizations? Yes.
It is 527 groups such as MoveOn.org, The Club for Growth, and Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth, that provide a useful avenue for political speech by those who believe in certain issues and wish to tell it to others in the public arena. The same people who condemn these groups are those that complain about low voter turnout and the lack of voter education. Certain 527s attempt to fix these ills though. MoveOn.org is a huge voter registration machine, as are others like the Sierra Club, and smaller groups like Michigan's Citizens for Traditional Values.
Advocacy groups are also prime tools for issue advocacy to an unlearned public. During this last political season one couldn't watch television without learning about Bush's mismanagement of the environment by The Media Fund, or his fumbling of Iraq from MoveOn.org, and of course we all remember those former buddies of John Kerry's, who served in Vietnam with him, known as the Swift Boat Vets for Truth. It was not always clear if the facts from The Media Fund were completely straight, obviously they were biased. And I can't say I knew what the story the Swift Boat Vets told was 100 percent true. What matters is that the debate was taking place in the public eye and educating voters.
But this brings us to a more knotty issue: should the First Amendment's free speech clause regulate advocacy by an outside group for or against a candidates position in the media? The founding fathers, and those who fought against the crown during the American Revolution valued most highly freedom of speech. I think it would be a bad assessment to assume the writers of the Bill of Rights would approve Senator McCain's interpretation of the free speech clause- "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech -- except about candidates positions just prior to an election."
Ok, but shouldn't these group's funding be regulated? Otherwise fat cats will be donating their millions and the groups may prove to be pivotal in tilting political power to the right or left. So be it. Senator McCain, whatever happened to principle over politics? If fat cats like George Soros want to write million dollar checks to groups like America Coming Together and MoveOn.org their freedom of speech should not be abridged just as I have the freedom to donate a few dollars to a political action committee with whom I agree with.
Unfortunately, this same debate is also beginning to brew again on Capitol Hill. Groups like Americans Coming Together and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had a substantial impact on this last election. These groups sprung up in the wake of the implementation of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reform law as Americans, left, right, and center sought to exercise their right to speak out during election season. Senators McCain and Feingold find this type of freedom sickening and are once again seeking to regulate political speech universally, including the 527's.
This idea of 527's helping one party gain a substantial advantage over the other is what drives politicians to regulate them. Giving advocacy groups freedom of speech means the political parties ca not restrict the issues and terms of the public debate. Members of congress are eager to ban unregulated funds so that their respective parties can monopolize the money and message during election seasons.
Any attacks by outside groups on a candidates stand on controversial issues could threaten the incumbent's 96 percent reelection rate.
I say, let the ads air and the donations flow in. Liberty and the rights it entails are more important than what politicians are in charge. If Soros and Moore, et al. are successful next time around, then so be it. What matters is that the debate occurs unregulated and outside the monopolization of political parties. The voters are smart enough to make a decision on whom to vote for. Both sides of the aisle, including President Bush need to find common ground in defending liberty over their own political pride or ambitions.