By Phil Kent, SLF President
As appeared in The Augusta Chronicle, April 12, 2002
The U.S. Congress passed and President Bush signed into law, with reservations, seemingly noble campaign finance "reform" bill that, in reality, is a Trojan horse poised to attack freedom of speech.
That's why the Southeastern Legal Foundation -- along with five other plaintiffs it represents, including U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., and the National Right to Work Committee -- this week joined with U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in a federal lawsuit against the Shays-Meehan law.
The best thing that can be said about this odious legislation which Barr, McConnell and others in Congress had fought for years, is that the nation will ultimately learn a lesson in the limits of constitutional free speech. The all-out assault by so-called reformers promises treatment for the symptoms of electoral abuses at the expense of the First Amendment.
As we point out in our SLF complaint filed Wednesday, it treads on First Amendment-protected associational rights by compelling organizations to disclose their membership lists to a far greater, and more dangerous, extent than ever before contemplated. It also places unprecedented limits on political parties' ability to make expenditures supporting their candidates.
SLF co-counsel (and former independent counsel) Ken Starr, along with other constitutional specialists assisting McConnell in this omnibus legal challenge, also underscores that the ban on radio and TV issue advocacy advertising naming a candidate 60 days from a general election and 30 days from a primary, as well as prohibitions on so-called "coordination" of contact between advocacy groups, individuals and candidates for office, is a violation of the First Amendment.
For example, if I meet with my friend, Barr, to discuss policy issues and then later, during his re-election campaign, the SLF airs a radio ad specifically naming him and lauding him for, say, his strong stand against illegal immigration, as president of the organization, I could be subject to fines or jail time. At the same time, a newspaper could publish the same opinion in that radio ad and be immune from prosecution. What's fair about that?
The ability of individuals and organizations to speak out on issues is political speech -- the most protected of all our First Amendment rights. As the venerable U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote decades ago, "(The Founding Fathers) believed that freedom to think as you will and speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth . . . the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
The cry for campaign finance reform, arising from decades of fundraising abuses and perceived special interest on lawmakers, is a legitimate one. What is unacceptable is any effort to stifle vigorous, public political debate -- described by congressional legal analysts reviewing the Shays-Meehan bill as a perception by lawmakers that "the First Amendment is a loophole that must be closed."
Also apparent in the strident efforts of reformers is a scorched-earth attack on private funding for political campaigns, leading to the inescapable conclusion that the real agenda underlying the effort is taxpayer-financed political campaigns.
The Shays-Meehan bill provides for expedited federal court review before a three-judge panel, followed by an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, so the high court will be the last line of defense for free speech in this country. It's just sad that more Americans -- and especially the Big Media -- aren't focusing on this extraordinary case that has such far-reaching consequences.
