Commentary: Not free, but still speech

WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 (UPI) -- This week the U.S. House of Representatives revisits the effort to place new limits on American political campaigns.

Spurred on by the dubious argument that the collapse of Enron - -on paper America's seventh- largest corporation -- is somehow emblematic of corruption in the political system, supporters of what some call "campaign finance reform" have seen their cause recently revived.

Polling data show that the American people, when asked, have little good to say about the current system. But other data suggest that no one outside of the Washington claque of politicians, left-wing interest groups and editorial writers is really excited about the prospects of or the need for change.

It is a classic "inside-the-Beltway" issue.

There are many things not to like about the current system. It is cumbersome and riddled with loopholes. Clear violations frequently go overlooked and unpunished. Yet anyone who opposes making the system even more cumbersome, more restrictive and likely even less effective is all too readily branded a tool of the corrupt.

The 1974 campaign reform act regulated contributions to federal campaigns and placed limits on personal contributions per campaign and per year -- so-called "hard money." The Federal Election Commission defines "soft money" as "funds raised and/or spent outside the limitations and prohibitions of the Act."

Soft money is anything outside of contributions to federal campaigns and efforts that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate. It is contributions to state candidates, money for party committees to run voter registration drives, and funds for party ads encouraging voter participation.

As a practical matter, it is also contributions to issue groups conducting voter education efforts: the ads, scorecards and direct-mail that explain where candidates stand on issue of concern.

Politicians hate these ads.

Often called "negative advertising" in media shorthand, these spots generally surface unpleasant details about a vote on a specific piece of legislation, a general ideological drift, or other information the candidate prefers voters not have.

Most people consider such activity free speech. Elected officials consider them poison.

The Federal Election Commission has long desired to regulate such ads, seeking to expand the definition of "express advocacy" to bring them under their purview. Up to now, they have failed.

The editorial boards of the some of the nation's most significant newspapers are with them in this effort. They too are interested parties and potential beneficiaries.

Were the provisions banning communications within 60 days of an election to become law, newspaper editorial writers would be elevated to the status of information gatekeeper, dispensing it to or keeping it from the voting public at will.

It's not about the money. Columnist George Will has written that "Spending per eligible voter in congressional races, in today's dollars, has hovered in a range from approximately $2.50 to $3.50 per eligible voter, inching up slightly in the highly competitive elections of 1994 and 1996 and reaching approximately $4 in the competitive elections of 1998 -- a bit more than the cost of one video rental."

Will says that if spending reached $3 billion, approximately $15 per eligible voter, it would be five-one-hundredths of 1 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, or "$2 billion less than Americans spend annually on Halloween snacks."

It's not about the money; it's about power. It is about who will control political messages -- politicians and bureaucrats and the media or the American people.

Shays, Meehan, McCain and Feingold are leading the charge to drive the voice of the citizen out of politics. They are perilously close to succeeding.

The issue ads that so annoy the professional political class are a marvelous manifestation of the idea of free speech as protected by the First Amendment. They are no less high-profile than what McCain and others would see as approved communications, and they are the product of individuals acting alone or together to make a difference.

To expose the lie, supporters of the First Amendment in Congress should propose a simple amendment to the Shays-Meehan bill as its moves through the House. The provisions applied to citizen groups, unions and others that prohibit issue advocacy ads from being run 60 days before an election and 30 days before a primary should be applied to the media as well.

No editorials in the same period. And nothing that hints at being an editorial either, in a nod to the FEC's desire to expand the definition of issue advocacy.

Opponents would decry such a proposal as an outrageous infringement on the First Amendment and freedom of the press. And they would be right. And it would be fun to watch them try to explain why the media's right to free speech is somehow more sacred than that of any individual American or a group of Americans working together. It's not free but it's still speech, and the government ought to leave it alone.