The New York Times, beating its editorial chest for its "record of vigilance on the First Amendment," whined about the Wellstone amendment.

Campaign Finance Reform:
The Unconstitutional Saga Continues

The unconstitutional campaign finance reform legislation generally referred to as McCain-Feingold and currently being debated in the U.S. Senate just got more so, the legislative maneuvering became even more cynical than it has been and the media continues to demonstrate that the only free speech they support is theirs.

On March 26, Senator Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota) thumbed his nose at the Constitution and demonstrated his disregard for Supreme Court decisions by introducing an amendment that would prohibit issue advertising by all interest groups two months before elections. The amendment passed by 51 to 46, although at least some of those voting for it did so in the hope that it (and other amendments in the hopper) would serve as a poison pill to the entire bill.

The New York Times, beating its editorial chest for its "record of vigilance on the First Amendment," whined about the Wellstone amendment, but continued to argue that the core of McCain-Feingold is constitutional. In so doing, the once-estimable newspaper praised the pronouncement by a group of former ACLU navel gazers that McCain-Feingold does not violate free speech protections, citing "the obvious truth that campaign contributions are not the same as speech."

Well, gee, guys, your version of the obvious was not so transparent to the Supreme Court that decided--in the landmark decision that is still current law--that money is speech. And, like it or not, the Supreme Court will undoubtedly be forced to decide again, as interest groups, including the Center for Individual Freedom, are forced to divert more of our speech money to the inevitable legal challenges.

Money, is, in practical political terms, the amplifier of speech, and while the media have built-in amplifiers for their self-centered notions of the public good, most of the rest of us must struggle and pay to be heard. Free speech has become expensive, but it must be protected at all cost.

The Senate can debate and maneuver all it wants. The New York Times can editorialize as long as it has paper and ink, but those of us who believe in constitutional government will take what has become the final, requisite step of too much public policy formulation: Forget the posturing and go directly to court.

Return to Freedom Line Archive