A false choice between free speech and honest government

May 3, 2006

This has been making its way around several conservative blogs for a few days, but I think [tag]John McCain[/tag]’s provocative comments about campaign-finance reform should generate concerns on both sides of the aisle.

On [tag]Imus[/tag], [tag]McCain[/tag] said:

“I work in Washington and I know that money [tag]corrupt[/tag]s…. I would rather have a clean government than one where ‘[tag]First Amendment[/tag] rights’ are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I’d rather have the [tag]clean government[/tag].”

Now, I’ve long believed that the [tag]McCain-Feingold[/tag] legislation raised serious constitutional issues, but McCain’s response isn’t that the law is sound and compatible with the First Amendment, but rather that it doesn’t matter. First Amendment, schmirst amendment; as long as we’re striving for a “cleaner” process, everything’s fine, McCain says.

How, exactly, does McCain arrive at such a formulation? How “clean” must the government be before the First Amendment can be respected again? Which other constitutional principles is McCain willing to sacrifice in the name of good government?

Maybe McCain can clarify some of this for us.

I’d like to see how he spins himself out of this mess, as well. In reading through a series of his more recent comments and inquiry-replies, it seems that John-Boy has taken to an almost Bush-ian pattern. It’s the kind of thing that says “Government is clean if dirt cannot be found.” So—if the First Amendment were to suddenly get shifted to the back burner—equating with people not being allowed to question unethical behavior or investigate potential criminal wrongdoing—then, of course, “government” would appear squeaky clean.

  • McCain is mouthing the same line that “reformers” have mouthed throughout history – from the Roman censors through Girolamo Savonarola through Wm. Jennings Bryan through Adolph Hitler and neo-fascists of all stripes today: Just give me the power (i.e., give up your rights) and I’ll give you what I consider to be “good government”.

    Thanks, senator McCain, but I don’t think we need to take advice from a man who – having been savaged by the Bush Crime Family in the South Carolina 2000 primaries (whispered rumors of an out-of-wedlock black child, addle-pated through No. Korean torture, e.g.) – embraced the Regal Moron and is the featured speaker at Falwell’s Liberty University graduation ceremonies this spring.

    Unlike that old-time religion, the First Admendment, as written, is good enough for me.

  • Perhaps I haven’t gotten the context of his comments, but I read the quotes around ‘First Amendment rights’ as implying that he doesn’t think there are real 1st Amendment concerns there. Is there some reason this rather straightforward reading doesn’t work?

  • Well, if 1st Amendment rights were restricted to those who are truly entitled to them, to “the people” and not to any non-human entity like corporations, then I think we would go a long way towards a much cleaner government.

  • as long as the trains run on time, who cares if you have to ride them silently?

  • There needn’t be any contradiction, but I can’t imagine right-winger McCain actually getting behind the solution:

    public campaign financing.

    It’s easy to do, and neutralises the influence of Big Money in politics. Basically, the people pay for the elections, and candidates are thus beholden to us, and can ignore the corporate feudal overlords attempting to buy them with campaign cash.

    If you live in California, go pound on your State Senators to demand that they pass AB 583, which was passed by the Assembly and is now stuck in the Elections committee.

    More at http://www.caclean.org

  • In a country where citizens have their right to speak abridged by the government is a guarantee that government will become dishonest.

    McCain’s giving us a false choice.

    Free speech is essential for forcing government honesty and holding them to account. I personally think that lobbyists should be free to give whatever they want to Congresspersons: lunches, trips, five-star hotels, booze, dope, or a $20 handjob from Snaggletooth Sally (if any of this ever becomes legal). But the voter should be able to access all this stuff in order to be informed about who the Congressperson is really representing. That way, the voters will know that they are voting for a bought politician–there would be no surprise or excuses for the constituency should the bum not represent their interests.

    Transparency should be the true reform, not controls on First Amendment rights.

  • yeah, I am generally a supporter of campaign finance reform, (limitations on spending, and donations, public financing, etc.) and am generally unpersuaded by the “money=speech” rubric in Buckley, but McCain’s argument here is really bad. Saying we can ignore the first amendment is just a terrible argument. Of course, a large percentage of the public believes the Fist Amendment goes to far, so, this may not really be an issue for anyone.

  • I haven’t had a chance to read other comments, so sorry if I repeat a point already well made.

    Could McCain be referring to equation by the Supreme Court of campaign contributions to first amendment rights? I have a hard time understanding how you can reform campaign finance and the influence of money in politics if this is the bottom line (and I can understand how this could become the bottom line). If you restrict my ability to support an issue or a candidate by restricting how much money I can throw at it or if you say I cannot spend unlimited funds as I “petition” the government, have you abridged my first amendment rights?

  • I’m with Alan on this. The Buckley assertation that giving money to candidates is ‘speech’ is absurd. If you oppose earmarks, run an add on the TV and the newspaper saying you are against earmarks. Don’t suggest that shady underhanded money giving to politicans is somehow speech.

    Disclosure, limiting money giving to real human beings (no corporations or unions), and clear rules on content that encourages issues advertising and discourages attack ads. Those are my suggestions.

  • I think that Alan and TuiMei are on the right path. This is probably a money=speech issue, and it is not entirely clear how to deal with this question. Even if you argue that money does not equal speech, can you stop a rich person from buying a newspaper to promote his or her political agenda? I fear that as long as governmental decisions and largesse have so much impact on personal incomes that there will always be an inexorable force for trying to buy the candidates that you want.

  • No policy that restricts the Bill of Rights for some “greater good” is good policy, no matter how you advertise that policy. McCain has shown himself to be a person with clay feet. I’m not surprised, and nor should anyone else be surprised. He is a politiciian courting the right wing, a Republican as stated by his party affiliation. His statements and actions of late have called into question his integrity and his fitness for office. He is being “pragmatic” by courting the creeps. He hopes to win the nomination by his actions and he probably will. Let’s hope his behavior now counts against him when it is time to count the votes in ’08.

  • In this country, everyone gets one vote, no matter how rich they are. We don’t all get votes based proportionately on how wealthy we are. Neither should our access to public officials be based on how wealthy we are. The only currency in Washington should be how many people we (or our lobbyists) represent, not how much money. John McCain and Russ Feingold, arguably, based on their reform measure, agree. That, and I really don’t see any Constitutional principles being violated by McCain-Feingold.

    So I’m not sure the complaint about McCain is fair. Conservatives complain that McCain’s campaign finance law violates the First Amendment. Because the First Amendment guarantees the right to petition your public officials, conservatives assume there should be no restrictions on the power of money in politics. McCain-Feingold puts a stop to that, and attempts to put a stop to the power of money in politics. That is what McCain is addressing. I think his mistake in his statements is assuming that the conservative complaints are correct. They are not. The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to bribe public officials.

  • yes, I agree with that, Rian. I don’t think McCain is wrong on the merits, but the way he phrased it was atrocious.

  • The committee for honest government
    FBI arrests N.J. public officials 9/6/2007
    Mayor, lawmakers, others accused of taking bribes to influence contracts
    Calif. charter school leader indicted 9/5/2007
    Prosecutors say he, city councilman siphoned millions in public school funds
    I guess being a public official – politician is a license to abuse the public confidence and take bribes and kickbacks. I think any public official who abuses his power and takes bribes, kickbacks and influence should get the full punishment the law can give and in an expedited manner.
    It is time public officials should abide by the law do their job honestly and build the public trust and confidence.
    Public officials should know that public office is not for sale under no circumstances.
    Honest government is a must

    Throughout our history, the American people have demanded that their government reflect our nation’s highest ideals of openness and honesty, transparency and integrity and — above all else — a clear commitment to protecting the interest of the American people, not powerful special interests.

    When the excesses of a corrupt establishment have gone too far, the American people have risen up and reformed the political process to correct our course — because ultimately it is the people who must lead.

    Today, to achieve and maintain power, the leaders of our country have built a system where money not only buys influence, but the right to govern. Special interests and their lobbyists not only buy access, they buy results — on any issue, no matter the public interest. This culture of corruption prevails through all levels of government.

    Our leaders have made the terms of the deal very clear. Those who make an investment in keeping dishonest leaders in power will see a huge return on their investment in the form of corporate welfare, no-bid contracts and favorable regulation — at the expense of the public interest.

    This corrupt cycle must be broken. When our elected officials bend government to serve their own interests or those of their friends, our democracy is at risk.

    Today we should be unveiling an ethics reforms package that will clean up our government so the American people can have the honest leadership they deserve, and so our government can get back to the work of the people for the people.

    Honest leadership is not a partisan goal — it is the key to a stronger Union. It is time to put progress ahead of politics. Together, we can change our government and rebuild trust with the American people. We call on all American’s to join the efforts in restoring honest leadership to all levels of government. The American people deserve nothing less.

    The committee for honest government.
    How come the City of Chicago is allowing an Energy company in Skokie, Illinois to collect City of Chicago taxes on natural gas for over 15 years without paying any of it to the city or refunding it to the customers. Maybe someone has clout – a former Federal judge was part owner in that company.

    • Comments are closed.