First they came for the political webloggers...

[vakkotaur]

This article is scary in its implications. In the name of Campaign Finance Reform, the very kind of speech that is supposedly most protected by the First Amendment is apt to be further attacked. Campaign Finance Reform is one of those things that sounds good, sounds appealing, and then when examined closely is found to be worse than ineffective, actually dangerous.

If my statement seems odd, perhaps it'd be worth considering what Walter Mondale wrote about campaign finance limits way back in 1956: "If set too high, limits serve no purpose; and if too low, candidates will attempt to avoid the law. If the law is sufficiently pervasive so that such avoidance is prevented, limits set at too low a level will prevent the electoral[sic] from becoming adequately informed, and such limits may be invalidated as a violation of free speech." He went on to explain that there is no way to know what an ideal limit might be, so setting a such a limit is not just foolish, but dangerous.

I have problems with the alleged campaign finance reform law(s) as they are already. Adding the proposed limits to speech only makes them all the worse. Mondale's solution of 1956 is still the right one: eliminate the limitations, but require full public disclosure of all contributions. The result would be an informed electorate.

Comments

[shelbystripes.livejournal.com]

It seems obvious after analysis that this whole thing is just FUD being spewed by an anti-reform activist (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050304-4671.html), attempting to alarm people into thinking the reform is "gonna come steal their freedoms" to try and rally them against it. And another member of the FEC has basically come forward and verified that analysis (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050308-4680.html).

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

This (http://www.hughhewitt.com#postid1428) is a rather less charged rebuttal to the original story. What I'd like to know about the second URL is what was actually said originally rather than merely what they said they said.

Even allowing for the original bit on the possibility blog regulation being hype rather than the thin edge of the wedge, what Mondale once wrote still holds true. I suppose such a statement makes me "anti-reform" according to some, but I'd rather have a genuine reform that preserves freedoms rather than one which is a reform in name only and is either ineffective or harmful.

[shelbystripes.livejournal.com]

This does preserve freedom. It's not about speech; as the commentary there points out, blogging isn't going to be touched, as long as it's not people being paid to say things. This is just about money.

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Even without the blogging issue, even if blogs did not exist, even if the Internet did not exist, the supposed campaign finance reforms are a problem rather than a solution.

Three things can happen when campaign money is artificially limited:

1. The limits are set so high as to be meaningless. This is actually the least problematic condition - the law is ineffective and nothing really happens.

2. The limits are set low and are worked around. This is worse as things get murkier about who is doing what and how. A group acting in their interests may be seen as acting in a candidates interest. Is there collusion? There might be, which would be a problem. But there might not be, yet the suspicion would remain.

3. The limits are set low and the law(s) are tight enough to keep them from being bypassed. This looks appealing but as Mondale wrote it will lead to a state of insufficient information getting to the electorate for an informed decision to be made.

The proposed solution, to not have limits but require disclosure of where money (or other aid) comes from eliminates the possibility of any of the three conditions happening. The idea of "getting money out of politics" is appealing, but not really workable. I expect that rather than realize that, that the current system of limitations in the U.S. will get patch after patch after patch in a futile attempt to make it work, all the while making things worse.