[IMC-Editorial] Op-Ed: Campaign Finance Limits Violate Free Speech

[The Ayn Rand Institute]

Dear Editor, 

Please consider this Op-Ed submission from the Ayn Rand Institute.

Campaign Finance Limits Violate Free Speech

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act--under review by the U.S. Supreme Court--is an 
ominous limitation on free speech

By Andrew Lewis

Earlier this year President Bush risked the lives of American military personnel to end 
Iraq's tyrannical regime--a dictatorship that not only restricted the actions of Iraqis 
but also silenced them from speaking their mind. It is ironic that President Bush led 
America into that war only days before signing legislation--the Bipartisan Campaign 
Reform Act (B.C.R.A)--that would violate and ultimately curtail *our* freedom of speech. 

The U.S. Supreme Court is now reviewing this legislation--and with it the future of free 
speech in America.

The alleged goal of B.C.R.A. is to end corruption in the political process. The two key 
provisions of the law, based on legislation drafted by Sen. Russell Feingold and Sen. 
John McCain, are the pre-election ban on "issue advertisements" sponsored by 
corporations and unions and the limits on so-called "soft money." Far from stopping 
corruption, these provisions are violations of free speech.

Political contributions, large or small, are a mode of speech--more clearly so than many 
of the forms of "symbolic speech," such as nude dancing and the filing of lawsuits, that 
have previously been protected--because they explicitly entail the expression of ideas. 
Your contribution to a candidate is *de facto* the publication of your ideas and is 
similar to hiring a speaker or commissioning an author. The amount of money you 
contribute--as an individual or in cooperation with others--should not disqualify you 
from expressing your ideas. The only proper "limits" on contributions are those set by 
your willingness to employ your money for this purpose.

All forms of advertising, including television advertising, are crucial means for 
communicating your ideas, values, and arguments. Election time is perhaps the most 
opportune time to broadcast political ads. Under the B.C.R.A.'s provisions, 
however, "issue advertising" on television is prohibited 60 days before a general 
election and 30 days before a primary.

B.C.R.A. strictly limits how much corporations and other organizations can contribute 
in "soft money" to a political party, but leaves political action committees, such as 
the environmentalist Green Power and Sen. McCain's own Straight Talk America, relatively 
free to speak their mind. With this law, our government is effectively telling us: "Shut 
up. Sit Down. Listen." And the only voices we'll hear are those the government has 
approved. This law restricts *in principle* what you can say by restricting how much you 
can say--and when you can say it. The B.C.R.A. will ultimately create in America an 
entrenched ideological elite granted permission to speak by the government.

The fundamental purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the right of citizens to 
express their views. The right to speak cannot be implemented without the right to 
property. The right to acquire and dispose of your property makes it possible for you to 
express your ideas, be it by publishing a book, placing an ad on the op-ed page, hiring 
a hall in which to deliver a lecture, supporting a candidate with whom you agree, or, 
more important, criticizing one with whom you disagree. The right to use his property is 
the only protection a private citizen has against a government monopoly on ideas. As 
Chief Justice Rehnquist correctly noted, "[It's] not up to the government to decide 
there is too much speech coming from one place and not enough from another."

The Supreme Court would do well to strike down the entire B.C.R.A., and pave the way for 
repealing all such legislation at federal and state levels.

Campaign finance limits cannot end political corruption, because the origin of this 
problem is the arbitrary power that politicians have to impose undeserved punishments 
on, or grant unearned rewards to, groups and individuals. The "special interests" 
contribute to candidates (often on both sides of an election) in order to escape certain 
controls or to appeal for legislative favors. But the corruption lies in the arbitrary 
power our politicians have, not in the fact that the victims or beneficiaries of that 
power try to influence its exercise. Removing that power, therefore, is the only way to 
eliminate the corruption.

Limiting the amount of money spent on elections will not solve the problem of influence-
peddling; it will, however, destroy a principle vital to our republic. It is the right 
to use and dispose of one's property that makes freedom of speech possible. Taken to its 
logical conclusion, the B.C.R.A. would move America's political system toward that of 
Iraq's former dictatorship.
__________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Lewis is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute (www.aynrand.org) in Irvine, 
Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and 
The Fountainhead. Send comments to reaction at aynrand.org

If you plan to use this Op-Ed, please send an email to
media at aynrand.org with your publication's name and the expected date
of publication.
 
Thank you,

David Holcberg
Media Department, Ayn Rand Institute 
2121 Alton Parkway Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92606
Phone: (949) 222-6550 ext. 226
E-mail: davidh at aynrand.org

If you wish to have your email REMOVED from this list, please hit
reply and type REMOVE in the subject line. Thank you.