Kicking the Los Angeles Times when they're down
I know things aren't so hunky dory for the Los Angeles Times these days, so I should probably cut them some slack when their editorial board comes out with an editorial whose main point I agree with:
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT astonished everyone in 2003 when it upheld the constitutionality of severe limits on political speech. The good news is that the court may be having some sober second thoughts about that dubious decision.
-- So far, so good. The article goes on to explain the part of the McCain-Feingold abomination that is at issue:
The speech-curtailing measure at issue is part of the broader McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The centerpiece of that law banned "soft money" contributions to political parties that were used to circumvent limits on how much donors could contribute to candidates for federal office. What is glaringly offensive to the 1st Amendment is an accompanying ban on "electioneering communications" paid for out of the treasuries of independent organizations.
-- Again, not bad. But the creeping bias and illogic of the editorial have already begun to make inroads against its larger point. Can we trust the Los Angeles Times to identify what is "glaringly offensive to the 1st Amendment" and what is not, especially when they seem glaringly oblivious to the fact that it is not glaringly obvious why restricting "soft money" contributions to political parties is presumably not "glaringly offensive to the 1st Amendment?"
As defined by the law, electioneering communications are advertisements that mention a candidate for federal office and are broadcast within 30 days of a primary election or within 60 days of a general election. They need not (and usually do not) tell viewers to vote for or against a candidate.
In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that McCain-Feingold's restrictions on these ads were not unconstitutional on their face. But an antiabortion group called Wisconsin Right to Life is arguing that the ban was applied in an unconstitutional way to prevent it from airing three TV advertisements in 2004. The ads asked viewers to tell the state's two senators — only one of whom was up for reelection — to allow a vote on President Bush's judicial nominations.
Last month, a three-judge federal court in Washington ruled that the "issue ad" provision deprived Wisconsin Right to Life of its free-speech rights. If the Supreme Court agrees, as it should, political speech will be given more breathing room. And such a ruling needn't derail the soft-money provisions of the McCain-Feingold legislation.
-- There's very little to object to in these three paragraphs, except -- once again -- the assumption, without argument or evidence, that restrictions on "soft money" contributions are consistent with the principles of the 1st Amendment. I'm not a legal and constitutional scholar, but something tells me that there's a debate to be had here. The desire of the Los Angeles Times editorial board to keep big money from corrupting the political process is a noble sentiment, but, last time I looked anyway, noble sentiments do not trump the 1st Amendment (however much some journalists may wish they did).
The editorial concludes thus:
But if the court isn't willing to go back to the drawing board, Congress should. An advertisement praising or criticizing a politician — even one seeking reelection — has more in common with the endorsement editorials that appear on this page than it does with the campaign contributions (in hard or soft dollars) that have received only minimal 1st Amendment protection from the courts.
The "bright line" that needs to be drawn is the one between financing someone else's message and articulating your own.
-- Excuse me, boys, but the bright line you wish to draw ain't quite so bright if you replace the phrase "financing someone else's message" with "using your own money to demonstrate your support for a candidate or party whose message you agree with." Perhaps all of our trouble begins when the courts admit "only minimal 1st Amendment protection" for "hard" or "soft" campaign contributions. The Times editorial staff seems blithely, or willfully, unaware of the fact that someone is paying for the messages they choose to articulate. What makes their message "their own" and why is ownership of the message denied to someone who'd rather contribute to the Republican or Democrat parties than, say, to the Los Angeles Times?
Several years ago, Penn Jillette wrote a great article about the idiocy and hypocrisy of McCain-Feingold and other kinds of campaign finance restrictions.
The gist of his argument is here:
So, how come I get to do my political spiel for free but the federal government won't even allow you to pay to do yours? Because I can tell jokes and do magic tricks, and juggle broken bottles and twist myself into a pretzel. Because of that, I have my (limited) freedom of speech and I have my soapbox. But you, you loser, chose to do something different with your life like developing drugs to relieve suffering, or building computers to solve problems, or teaching children stuff that society considers less useful than being able to hide a rabbit on your person and toss off (get it?) double-entendres with a busty soap opera ingénue.
Now, I'm not stupid. (After all, I can find a "freely? "selected? card in a perfectly "ordinary?, "shuffled" deck, which gives me free political TV time.) I know that all the campaign finance reform crusaders don't really worry about individual nuts. They're just trying to stop those pesky unions and corporations from saying bad things about people in power. The last thing they want is for groups of workers or businesses to have something to say about an election or an issue.
And the campaign finance crusaders are getting plenty of help from office-holders and the supposedly pro-free-speech media. The media know all about the value of speaking one's mind; after all, the media is just people who get paid to say whatever they want, whenever they want, to huge audiences. That's what they do. So, campaign finance reform has a huge upside for anyone in the media, whether it's the news or the arts. And it has a huge upside for incumbents that don't have to deal with people getting together and buying ads to say that the incumbents are wrong.
They're working together to make sure the revolution will not be televised.
Now that the campaign finance reformers, media, and incumbents all agree, what should you do if you want your voice to be heard? First, quit your job. Now, start juggling, monkey-boy.
While the Los Angeles Times goes a little way toward recognizing some of the contradictions and absurdities that Jillette exposes, they still cling to the idea that certain ways of financing political speech are "more equal" than other ways. And they always, predictably, end up on the safe side of the bright line. How convenient.
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT astonished everyone in 2003 when it upheld the constitutionality of severe limits on political speech. The good news is that the court may be having some sober second thoughts about that dubious decision.
-- So far, so good. The article goes on to explain the part of the McCain-Feingold abomination that is at issue:
The speech-curtailing measure at issue is part of the broader McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The centerpiece of that law banned "soft money" contributions to political parties that were used to circumvent limits on how much donors could contribute to candidates for federal office. What is glaringly offensive to the 1st Amendment is an accompanying ban on "electioneering communications" paid for out of the treasuries of independent organizations.
-- Again, not bad. But the creeping bias and illogic of the editorial have already begun to make inroads against its larger point. Can we trust the Los Angeles Times to identify what is "glaringly offensive to the 1st Amendment" and what is not, especially when they seem glaringly oblivious to the fact that it is not glaringly obvious why restricting "soft money" contributions to political parties is presumably not "glaringly offensive to the 1st Amendment?"
As defined by the law, electioneering communications are advertisements that mention a candidate for federal office and are broadcast within 30 days of a primary election or within 60 days of a general election. They need not (and usually do not) tell viewers to vote for or against a candidate.
In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that McCain-Feingold's restrictions on these ads were not unconstitutional on their face. But an antiabortion group called Wisconsin Right to Life is arguing that the ban was applied in an unconstitutional way to prevent it from airing three TV advertisements in 2004. The ads asked viewers to tell the state's two senators — only one of whom was up for reelection — to allow a vote on President Bush's judicial nominations.
Last month, a three-judge federal court in Washington ruled that the "issue ad" provision deprived Wisconsin Right to Life of its free-speech rights. If the Supreme Court agrees, as it should, political speech will be given more breathing room. And such a ruling needn't derail the soft-money provisions of the McCain-Feingold legislation.
-- There's very little to object to in these three paragraphs, except -- once again -- the assumption, without argument or evidence, that restrictions on "soft money" contributions are consistent with the principles of the 1st Amendment. I'm not a legal and constitutional scholar, but something tells me that there's a debate to be had here. The desire of the Los Angeles Times editorial board to keep big money from corrupting the political process is a noble sentiment, but, last time I looked anyway, noble sentiments do not trump the 1st Amendment (however much some journalists may wish they did).
The editorial concludes thus:
But if the court isn't willing to go back to the drawing board, Congress should. An advertisement praising or criticizing a politician — even one seeking reelection — has more in common with the endorsement editorials that appear on this page than it does with the campaign contributions (in hard or soft dollars) that have received only minimal 1st Amendment protection from the courts.
The "bright line" that needs to be drawn is the one between financing someone else's message and articulating your own.
-- Excuse me, boys, but the bright line you wish to draw ain't quite so bright if you replace the phrase "financing someone else's message" with "using your own money to demonstrate your support for a candidate or party whose message you agree with." Perhaps all of our trouble begins when the courts admit "only minimal 1st Amendment protection" for "hard" or "soft" campaign contributions. The Times editorial staff seems blithely, or willfully, unaware of the fact that someone is paying for the messages they choose to articulate. What makes their message "their own" and why is ownership of the message denied to someone who'd rather contribute to the Republican or Democrat parties than, say, to the Los Angeles Times?
Several years ago, Penn Jillette wrote a great article about the idiocy and hypocrisy of McCain-Feingold and other kinds of campaign finance restrictions.
The gist of his argument is here:
So, how come I get to do my political spiel for free but the federal government won't even allow you to pay to do yours? Because I can tell jokes and do magic tricks, and juggle broken bottles and twist myself into a pretzel. Because of that, I have my (limited) freedom of speech and I have my soapbox. But you, you loser, chose to do something different with your life like developing drugs to relieve suffering, or building computers to solve problems, or teaching children stuff that society considers less useful than being able to hide a rabbit on your person and toss off (get it?) double-entendres with a busty soap opera ingénue.
Now, I'm not stupid. (After all, I can find a "freely? "selected? card in a perfectly "ordinary?, "shuffled" deck, which gives me free political TV time.) I know that all the campaign finance reform crusaders don't really worry about individual nuts. They're just trying to stop those pesky unions and corporations from saying bad things about people in power. The last thing they want is for groups of workers or businesses to have something to say about an election or an issue.
And the campaign finance crusaders are getting plenty of help from office-holders and the supposedly pro-free-speech media. The media know all about the value of speaking one's mind; after all, the media is just people who get paid to say whatever they want, whenever they want, to huge audiences. That's what they do. So, campaign finance reform has a huge upside for anyone in the media, whether it's the news or the arts. And it has a huge upside for incumbents that don't have to deal with people getting together and buying ads to say that the incumbents are wrong.
They're working together to make sure the revolution will not be televised.
Now that the campaign finance reformers, media, and incumbents all agree, what should you do if you want your voice to be heard? First, quit your job. Now, start juggling, monkey-boy.
While the Los Angeles Times goes a little way toward recognizing some of the contradictions and absurdities that Jillette exposes, they still cling to the idea that certain ways of financing political speech are "more equal" than other ways. And they always, predictably, end up on the safe side of the bright line. How convenient.
posted by Kate Marie | 11:44 AM | Permalink
|
2 comments
2 Comments:
I will never understand why Congress passed that bill, why Bush did not veto it, and why the Supreme Court did not rule it unconstitutional.
They all passed the buck, and look where we are now.
Funny, Sadeeq and I just attended a Federalist Society dinner at which Ed Meese spoke (an aside: Meese spoke about recent Supreme Court decisions relating to the War on Terror, and he was very, very impressive). But during the question and answer period afterward, someone asked him about McCain-Feingold. The first thing he said was that there was no doubt in his mind that Reagan would have vetoed that bill the minute it crossed his desk. That remark received one of the most sustained ovations of the evening.
Post a Comment
<< Home