BCRA (McCain-Feingold) bites the hand that fed it

[shanek]

Well, after all of the steadfast denial about the horrible abrogation of our basic free speech and free press rights represented by the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (aka McCain-Feingold), and after the Supreme Court ruling that ordinary schmoes don't have the same free press rights as NBC or the New York Times, the effects are starting to be fully felt by none other than MoveOn.org, a liberal organization that runs issue ads in favor of liberal candidates and issues and against conservative candidates and issues (nothing at all wrong with that, BTW). They are now feeling the pinch that the libertarian RealCampaignReform.org said was coming. Of course, they're trying to blame the Republicans, but the truth is this is the effect of the very legislation they supported:

http://www.moveon.org/news/fec-gag.html

The Republican National Committee is pressing the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") to issue new rules that would shut down groups that dare to communicate with the public in any way critical of President Bush or members of Congress. Incredibly, the FEC has just issued -- for public comment -- proposed rules that would do just that. Any kind of non-profit -- conservative, progressive, labor, religious, secular, social service, charitable, educational, civic participation, issue-oriented, large, and small -- could be affected by these rules.

Operatives in Washington are displaying a terrifying disregard for the values of free speech and openness which underlie our democracy. Essentially, they are willing to pay any price to stop criticism of Bush administration policy.

Well, to lift a line from their camp, "I feel your pain." However, they claim:

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 just isn't true. In fact. McCain, if you'll recall, spoke out greatly about "sham issue ads" and how groups like MoveOn.org and the American Liberty Foundation shouldn't run ads critical of incumbents. That's the essence of Title II, which says that if "any person makes, or contracts to make, any disbursement for any electioneering communication" then "such disbursement or contracting shall be treated as a contribution to the candidate supported by the electioneering communication or that candidate’s party and as an expenditure by that candidate or that candidate’s party." In other words, if you run ads in support of a candidate or his issues, that's considered a contribution to that candidate; if you run ads opposing a candidate or his issues, they're conisdered a contribution to the opposing candidate. And the Supreme Court called this assumption "reasonable."

They also say:

The chilling effect of the proposed rules on free speech cannot be overstated.

Fine. We could have used your support when we were fighting McCain-Feingold before the Supreme Court and made your very arguments! Instead, you supported the other side. And now you're complaining because the gun you've given the government is nowbeing pointed at you.

I agree that it's horrible and a gross abrogation of their rights; I disagree that it's any kind of surprise.

And apparently, MoveOn.org isn't the only one:

Already, more than five hundred nonprofit organizations - including many that supported McCain-Feingold like ourselves - have voiced their opposition to the FEC's efforts to restrict advocacy in the name of campaign finance reform.

So, many of them supported McCain-Fengold and it's come around to bite them on the kiester. I would hope that this experience would teach them a valuable lesson: that when you give a power to the government to use against people you don't like, they'll just turn around and use it against people you do like, or you yourself. I really hope this lesson will be driven home.

However, given their denial about McCain-Feingold, I really very much doubt it.

 

[Beerina]

As George Will put it, the Republicans using the law against Democrats to stifle free speech is disgusting; however, they deserve it, promoting that law in the first place.

It's basically people in power not liking the idea that ads directed against them might actually work.

 

[shanek]

As George Will put it, the Republicans using the law against Democrats to stifle free speech is disgusting; however, they deserve it, promoting that law in the first place.

It's basically people in power not liking the idea that ads directed against them might actually work.

Which is exactly what it was, what all forms of "campaign finance reform" are: incumbent protection acts. They were designed from the start to make it more difficult for challengers to unseat incumbents.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I have always maintained that this legislation was more frightening to me than either the Patriot Act or RICO -- because it specifically set out to limit core, political speech.

It regulates what I, or you, or any group of people might decide to say in the realm of politics. If that does not scare you, you are not thinking hard enough about it.

This law should not have been passed; it should not have been signed; it should not have been given the green light by the Supreme Court -- who seem to have "discovered" a new principle in the Constitution that trumps free speech, the "perception" that politicians may be corrupt, even if such corruption has not been proven to exist. (!)

N/A