Campaign Finance Reform, Keeping Lawyers Employed in the 21st Century

Remember back when everyone (and by everyone, I mean pretty much just incumbent politicians) was calling for "Campaign Finance Reform" because the current method was allowing Big Business to promote who they liked, and was silencing the little man. In other words, the old system allegdly decided whose speech was important. Well, welcome to McCain-Feingold.

By criticizing Dreier's positions on immigration, promoting a "Fire Dreier" campaign and making on-air appeals for voters to elect Matthews, the NRCC said, the hosts gave Matthews an unlawful corporate, in-kind contribution of more than $25,000..."This behavior is illegal and must be appropriately punished," the NRCC charged, noting violation of the law carries a penalty of fines and jail time. The complaint echoes objections the Democratic Party made earlier this month when Sinclair Broadcasting Group Inc. prepared to pre-empt regular programming before Election Day to show a documentary critical of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Campaign finance experts, however, said election law explicitly allows the media to make editorial comments -- whether it's Rush Limbaugh endorsing President George W. Bush, Al Franken backing Sen. John Kerry, or John and Ken pushing for Matthews.

Let's make this really simple. McCain-Feingold has changed nothing. It has simply made it harder for everyone to say anything, without getting sued for something. Free Speech trumps just about anything in our democracy (with the exception of lude behavior, usually) and no law should be viewed as suppressing the speech of media or private citizens. But that is the problem with these attempts to regulate financing of campaigns. It is an attempt to suppress speech for the people the incumbents dislike. Let's simply allow unlimited contributions, but require full disclosure in a way that can not be hidden behind such tricks as the ubiquitous 527s. Or is that too radical?