Cox was one of six panelists invited to discuss the topic of "Coping
With BCRA" at the conference entitled "Reconsidering Campaign
Finance Reform"...
|
CFIF
Assistant General Counsel Tells University of Virginia Conference
That McCain-Feingold, Legal Uncertainty Gags Advocacy Groups
The
Assistant General Counsel of the Center for Individual Freedom,
Reid Alan Cox, told a conference of academic experts on campaign
finance Tuesday that both the actual restrictions contained in and
the legal uncertainty surrounding the Bipartisan Campaign Reform
Act of 2002, popularly known as McCain-Feingold, have effectively
silenced non-profit ideological interest groups since the law went
into effect after the last Congressional elections. Cox was one
of six panelists invited to discuss the topic of "Coping With
BCRA" at the conference entitled "Reconsidering Campaign
Finance Reform" sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs
at the University of Virginia. Also on the panel were counsel to
both political parties, journalists from the National Journal
and National Public Radio, and the Executive Director of the Progressive
Majority. The panel was moderated by Professor Michael Malbin, who
is the Executive Director of the Washington, D.C.-based Campaign
Finance Institute and a professor of political science at SUNY-Albany.
Cox
told the assembled conference of academic campaign finance experts
that the combination of BCRAs overbroad speech restrictions
and the legal uncertainty surrounding the state of campaign finance
law has served to drastically reduce interest-group-sponsored issue
advertisements and political speech since McCain-Feingold went into
effect. Its been almost impossible to cope with BCRA because
not only does the law wholly rewrite the rules for political speech
and funding by which interest groups must play, but those rules
have been in a constant state of flux since the law went into effect,
Cox explained.
"Since
I was hired as the Assistant General Counsel of the Center a little
more than a year ago, I have lived through three different campaign
finance regimes," Cox noted. "Before the last Congressional
elections, we all knew we could publicly discuss the issues, as
well as the candidates, so long as we did not expressly advocate
a candidates election or defeat thats the standard
from Buckley v. Valeo. Then BCRA went into effect, and we
werent allowed even to refer to a candidate within
either 30 days of a primary [election] or 60 days of a general [election].
But at least we could speak our minds until those off-limits months.
And then, of course, the special three-judge district court came
down with their BCRA decision, and we learned that, according to
Judge [Richard] Leon, running issues ads that could be construed
as supporting or opposing a candidate were out-of-bounds at all
times."
Other
panelists agreed that the law was problematic, and each expressed
concerns. Joseph Sandler and Charles Spies, lawyers for the Democratic
and Republican National Committees, respectively, bemoaned how McCain-Feingold
isolates national political parties from their state and local counterparts
and constituencies. National Journal reporter Eliza Newlin
Carney voiced doubts about the ability to "follow the money"
under the new laws disclosure provisions. In general, the
panelists agreed that the newness of McCain-Feingold combined with
its yet unsettled constitutional validity have been serious concerns
for all those wanting to fund and disseminate public policy messages.
The
U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the consolidated cases
challenging the constitutionality of BCRA on Monday, September 8,
2003, and has yet to issue its decision. The High Courts resolution
of the cases is expected to be most important legal decision in
25 years concerning the permissibility of regulating political speech
and campaign finance.
[Posted
October 2, 2003]
|