Republicans Voting to End Free Speech

George Will has a piece today in the Washington Post regarding what he feels is a betrayal by the GOP:

WASHINGTON -- If in November Republicans lose control of the House of Representatives, April 5 should be remembered as the day they demonstrated that they earned defeat. Traducing the Constitution and disgracing conservatism, they used their power for their only remaining purpose -- to cling to power. Their vote to restrict freedom of speech came just as the GOP's conservative base is coming to the conclusion that House Republicans are not worth working for in October or venturing out to vote for in November.

The ``problem'' Republicans addressed is that in 2004 Democrats were more successful than Republicans in using 527 organizations -- advocacy groups named after the tax code provision governing them. In 2002, McCain-Feingold banned large ``soft money'' contributions for parties -- money for issue-advocacy and organizational activities, not for candidates. In 2004, to the surprise of no sensible person and most McCain-Feingold supporters, much of the money -- especially huge contributions from rich liberals -- was diverted to 527s. So on April 5, House Republicans, easily shedding what little remains of their ballast of belief in freedom and limited government, voted to severely limit the amounts that can be given to 527s.

David Dreier, R-Calif., explained, sort of. He said he voted against McCain-Feingold because ``dictating who could give how much to whom'' violated the First Amendment, but now he favors dictating to 527 contributors because McCain-Feingold is not violating the First Amendment enough: It is not ``working as it was intended.'' That is, it is not sufficiently restricting the money financing political advocacy.

Candice Miller, R-Mich., said that restricting 527s would combat ``nauseating ugliness, negativity and hyperpartisanship.'' Oh, so that is what the First Amendment means: Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech unless speech annoys politicians.

If I were to look back at what I felt was the biggest disappointment of the Bush Administration, I'd have to point to the signing of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Restrictions on campaign financing are nothing more than restrictions on political speech, and the act should never have been signed by Bush or allowed to proceed by the Supreme Court. I have long felt that Bush signed the bill because he thought it was politically expedient to do so and fully expected it to be rejected by the Supremes. That just goes to show you that you can't count on another branch of government to right your wrongs.

Once that act was in place, it was only a matter of time before political activists came up with new ways to funnel money into campaigns, and in 2004 we saw the rise of the 527 groups which took in millions of unregulated dollars and played a big role in the campaign. It was a creative way around McCain-Feingold.

Now the GOP, upset that they didn't play the 527 game as well as the Dems, have voted to restrict speech yet again. This is not the way conservatives approach problems like this, and Will is right that actions like these turn off the conservative base.

Later in the article Will points to the possibility that this new found love of restricting speech could one day lead to a Dem move to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, the law which required all radio stations to be balanced in their presentations (and therefore, boring). Repeal of the Fairness Doctrine led to the rise of talk radio which has been dominated by conservatives and has played in major role in politics since the 1994 House and Senate takeover by the GOP. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would cause station managers to either find lefty talk hosts to "balance" conservatives like Limbaugh, Hannity, Hewitt, Medved and others (good luck with that), or would cause them to drop shows or change formats because the problems associated with complying with the law would become too onerous. Talk radio would once again return to its boring roots.

For many political observers 2006 is reminding them of 1994 and the GOP takeover, but I think a better comparison might be 1998 when conservatives, upset with the way the GOP was doing things in Washington, stayed home in large numbers. It didn't result in a change of majority status, but cost the GOP many seats and paved the way for the Senate takeover by the Dems when Jeffords defected in 2001. This could be a costly year for the GOP.