Liberals up in arms: McCain-Feingold not working out like they intended
by Jim Babka
April 2, 2004Life is interesting, isn't it? Why, just a few months ago, liberal groups were joining hands and singing folk songs, hailing John McCain, Russ Feingold, and the other incumbents for "saving democracy from the clutches of special interests" with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). MoveOn was one of those groups.
But now, MoveOn has a new problem. And a well-written and highly accurate essay, written by the FEC Working Group and published by MoveOn illustrates how awful this new problem is. http://www.moveon.org/news/fec-gag.html {You'll want to scroll down to the EXAMPLES section of this piece}
For reasons that will become obvious in a moment, "I feel their pain."
Here's their problem. They have a $5 million donor. He's helped them finance a bevy of anti- Bush ads. But thanks to McCain-Feingold, they're seeing their rights trimmed by a proposed set of rules coming from the bureaucracy empowered to oversee the BCRA – the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
OK, to be fair to them, they didn't really expect the Republicans to actually ask the FEC to use this newfound power in such heinous ways. After all, whatever happened to free speech and free press?
Good question!
I feel their pain because I was president of RealCampaignReform.org (RCR). RCR challenged the BCRA all the way to the US Supreme Court (Paul v. FEC). We failed to overturn the law. But our plaintiff group took the most principled stand (of the 11 total groups). It appears we influenced some of the Justices, resulting in some wonderful dissenting opinions. Perhaps some future Court can use these inspired dissents to correct this abhorrent ruling.
But now, MoveOn wants to rewrite history. Here's a direct quote,
"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's just not accurate.
And I should know. In addition to being a plaintiff in the BCRA case, RCR built the most comprehensive web-site on the worldwide web for the pro-1st Amendment side in the area of campaign finance reform. We filed two amicus briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing for Free Press rights. We lobbied the U.S. House when they were debating their version of this law – Shays-Meehan – generating over 3,000 letters to Congress.
But don't take my word for it. Let's flash back a wee bit. Senator John McCain (sponsor of BCRA) and his allies in the Senate wanted an end to what they called "sham issue ads." These were ads by independent groups, like MoveOn, that criticized incumbents. That was Title II of this law.
And what was the alleged justification for Title II as argued by the McCainanites? Non-profit groups serve as "conduits" for getting around hard money limits.
The left-wing McCainanites (money in politics is the root of evil crowd) argued that there was a Hydraulic Principle in campaign finance. The Hydraulic Principle is that water will seep out of a crack on a hydraulic cylinder. Similarly, if limits are placed on political parties (Title I of the law), then it would seep to other places, including non-profit groups (like MoveOn).
The Court explicitly stated that such an assumption was "reasonable."
For three years RCR pointed out over and over, that there would be what MoveOn is now calling a "chilling effect" on free speech in campaigns.
But MoveOn is about creating utopian visions through big government. Their response was predictable. They're asking the FEC bureaucracy to enforce the law in the utopian method they had intended for it.
The Dictator Fallacy
But as David Bergland said, "Utopia is not an option." MoveOn has fallen for the Dictator Fallacy.
The Dictator Fallacy is the belief that the law will be implemented in just the way you intended. But this is just plain silly.
First, the legislative branch is going to haggle and your perfect bill is going to be modified – perhaps dramatically. There might even be a federal building for Senator Foghorn in the deal.
Then the executive branch will get a hold of the law. They will have every incentive to expand their power (more on that in a minute). And the Courts may even get in on the act, doing some unwelcome tinkering with your plan.
On top of that, people will begin living under the law. It should come as no surprise that Republicans, most of whom opposed the law, have seized the opportunity to use it to bludgeon their opponents. If you can't join 'em, beat 'em.
As if that's still not enough, the law will have a set of unintended consequences – a boomerang effect. For example, laws to curb drug use increase their spread to children. Laws to restrict gun ownership increase burglaries and assaults. And all this happens no matter how well- intentioned the backers of the law are.
MoveOn may be content to call what they deem "shocking" behavior by the Bush Administration "unintended" consequences. But it's gotten to the point where _the one thing_ we can _always count on_ when politicians attempt to solve some problem -- like special interests in politics -- is unintended consequences.
To make matters even worse for our utopian friends, "The power you give a politician you like today to do something you want done is the same power that will be used tomorrow in ways you would've never imagined or approved of by politicians you hate."
The Dictator Fallacy means that you have no matter how well intentioned you are, no matter how good you think your idea would be, your new law to solve the problem won't be passed by you; won't be administered by you; won't be adjudicated by you. But you might get stuck living with your Frankenstein creation – just like MoveOn did.
Blind Spot
What are the likely effects of the proposed FEC policy? MoveOn has hit the nail on the head. http://www.moveon.org/news/fec-gag.html
They're alarmed, up-in-arms. And they should be.
But when you get down to the Talking Points section, you can revel at the naïve nature of these big government liberals who are surprised that a bureaucracy is taking the ruling of the Court to its logical and ultimate conclusion – surprised that Republicans who opposed this law (the RNC was also a plaintiff) are now using it like a club to beat their opponents over the head.
Is it fair to call them naïve? Well, since when did executive branch bureaucrats hem their own power? They usually take opportunities, like this new law, to expand it.
And why do they do so?
- This new law makes the bureaucrats more powerful, and that's intoxicating to them.
- Taking full advantage of their powers keeps them out of hot water when Congressman Busybody calls them before some commission asking why they weren't doing more to prevent something bad from happening.
Sowing the Seeds of War
In this case, we're all left to reap the bitter harvest of campaign finance reform – in reality, a scheme to protect incumbents. It's simple sowing and reaping.
MoveOn understands that the war in Iraq is wrong. I'm guessing most of their minions think the insane War on Drugs and the war on civil liberties (the Patriot Act) are wrong as well.
Why do they refuse to understand that politicians love wars?
The campaign finance act was government's war against corruption in the Nixon era. By the turn of our new century, campaign finance reform became government's war against so- called "special interests."
Politicians are always "at war," and the collateral damage will _always_ include your rights.
MoveOn is crying over milk they spilled. There's only one consistent, just, and positive solution – Downsize DC.
This Site is under construction. Please check back later.
Comments to: webmaster@CultureRepair.com