Unfree Speech

· Wisconsin Right to Life had used a political action committee to finance the ads rather than corporate contributions.

Such are regulated speech's contortions. They will mount. Wisconsin Right to Life sued, arguing that its First Amendment rights had been abridged, even though the Supreme Court had previously upheld McCain-Feingold's constitutionality. Well, in a 5 to 4 decision, the court didn't overturn the law's constitutionality, but it agreed that the standard for permissible preelection "issue ads" must be broadened. The trouble is that the new standard, set by Chief Justice John Roberts, seems unclear even to some fellow justices. Confusion and litigation will continue.

Questions arise. Why is the expanding regulation of speech so little reported and appreciated? Has it brought any public benefits?

The answer to the first is simple: By and large, the media regard campaign finance "reform" as a worthy crusade. Money in politics is bad; big money, however defined, is worse. It's corrupt -- or might be. Curb it. Overlook or minimize the attendant restrictions on political speech. The media jealously guard their own free speech. They are more casual about everyone else's.

As to the second, the answer is: few, if any. Campaign finance "reform" hasn't cured public cynicism about money in politics -- the main legal justification for First Amendment restrictions -- and can't, because Americans routinely feel cynical about politics. But the objective basis here for their cynicism is weak.

Although it's common to think that politicians sell their votes to big contributors, the overwhelming conclusion of academic research is that in roll call votes, members of Congress follow their philosophical views and constituents' interests, says Michael Malbin, executive director of the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute. Contributions, he says, may have more influence at the committee level, where legislation is drafted. Still, America is so wealthy that a competitive war chest can be amassed for almost any cause and interest (business, labor, the environment, poverty).

Politics requires money. Try to purge politics of money and politics is crippled. Free speech's value is not only a diversity of views; it is also the ability of people to contest those views. The only desirable controls are contribution disclosures. Let people see who's giving to whom. Free speech involves no right to secret speech. Otherwise, recognize that campaign finance "reform" is a dagger in the First Amendment.