Jewish World Review March 5, 2001 / 10 Adar, 5761
Let us hope not!
DISQUIETING rumors persist that some of President Bush's advisers are eager to sign a campaign finance "reform" bill, or at least to avoid vetoing one. Bush should beware of what Edmund Burke called "the irresistible operation of feeble councils."
And he should be aware of the Colorado case argued before the Supreme Court last Wednesday. If the court affirms the judgment of two lower courts in that case, the McCain-Feingold bill is patently unconstitutional.
Although a plain statement of the salient fact seems preposterous, the unvarnished truth is that McCain-Feingold's premise is: There is something inherently corrupt about the relationship between political parties and their candidates. Thus the bill would ban "soft money" contributions to parties -- unregulated money that can be spent for party-building, voter turnout, issue advocacy and other purposes, but not to "directly influence" the election of candidates for federal offices.
Last week, a quarter of a century after the Buckley v. Valeo ruling, which struck down much of the 1974 campaign finance law, the court for the first time heard arguments about whether it is constitutional for the government to limit a party's direct expenditures -- "hard dollars" -- for its candidates. In Buckley, the court held that limits on political money -- contributions and expenditures -- implicate "the most fundamental First Amendment activities," and therefore government bears a heavy burden of demonstrating a compelling need to limit those activities. The only such justification the court considers sufficient is the need to prevent corruption or the appearance thereof.
Well. In 1986 the Colorado Republican Party ran ads criticizing a Democratic congressman who was considering running for the Senate. It did this before the Republican Senate candidate had been chosen. Nevertheless, the Federal Election Commission charged that this expenditure violated federal limits on party expenditures for candidates. Ten years later the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the FEC, saying the ads were "independent expenditures" and thus not subject to the "hard dollar" limits.
The Supreme Court remanded the case for the lower courts to consider whether those "hard dollar" limits themselves are constitutional at all. In response, the district court and the 10th Circuit have both said they are not. Last Wednesday the FEC asked the Supreme Court to say they are. But how can it without saying, preposterously, that there is a substantial risk of parties corrupting their own candidates by supporting them ?
As the district court said on remand: "The FEC seeks to broaden the definition of corruption to the point that it intersects with the very framework of representative government."
The FEC is a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies have a metabolic urge to maximize their missions. The FEC's mission is to regulate political discourse. A president's primary mission, stated in his oath of office, is different -- to defend the Constitution. Bush understands the conflict between his duty and the FEC's urge.
Around 7 a.m., Jan. 23, 2000, the day before the Iowa caucuses, candidate Bush was in Des Moines preparing to appear on ABC's "This Week." One of those who was to question him (this columnist), not wanting to ambush him with unfamiliar material, and wanting from him a considered judgment, took the unusual step of telling Bush he would be asked if he agreed with a particular proposition from an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas. The proposition, given to Bush on a 3-by-5 card, was:
"There is no constitutionally significant distinction between campaign contributions and expenditures. Both forms of speech are central to the First Amendment."
Asked if he agreed that there is something "inherently hostile to the First Amendment" in limiting participation in politics by means of contributions by individuals (Bush favors banning "collective speech" by corporations, or by unions without members' prior written consent), he briskly replied: "I agree." And asked if he thinks a president has a duty to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he considers unconstitutional, he replied: "I do."
This puts Bush on a collision course with much of the political class and most of the media. It may become the first disruption of his serene relations with them, but there eventually must be a first, and the stake -- the First Amendment -- is worth a fight.
Bush has served himself and the country well by his congeniality efforts, but he will serve neither by continuing them until it costs him respect. It will cost him that if he signs McCain-Feingold.
Genius, said Bismarck, involves knowing when to stop. He had in mind waging war, but the same is true of waging
Comment on JWR contributor George Will's column by clicking here.
03/01/01: Duck! Our racial and ethnic spoils system is spinning out of control
02/26/01: Common Sense and the Constitution
02/22/01: Brooklyn's Artsy Dodgers
02/20/01: Whose surplus is it, anyway?
02/16/01: A truly inclusive holiday
02/12/01: Within the realm of Bush's tax cut
02/08/01: A season spoiled
02/05/01: Keeping faith behind initiatives
02/01/01: Tall order for a few federal dollars
01/29/01: You ain't seen nothin' yet
01/26/01: 'Art' Unburdened by Excellence
01/22/01: The monkey that could mean the end
01/19/01: The real enemy in the drug war
01/15/01: Congress just isn't big enough
01/12/01: Clinton's mark
01/08/01: All that is jazz
01/04/01: Bush's picks reveal Right attitude
01/02/01: Prosperity in perspective
12/28/00: Soft landing in a spoiled nation
12/26/00: When laws replace common sense
12/21/00: Beware the 'Bipartisanship'
12/18/00: ... A Brief Moment
12/13/00: Judicial activism on trial
12/11/00: Truth optional
12/06/00: A Chastened Court
12/01/00: Counting on some slippery language
11/28/00: Florida's rogue court
11/27/00: This willful court
11/22/00: Ferocity gap
11/17/00: Slow-motion larceny
11/13/00: Gore, Hungry for Power
11/09/00: No, the System Worked
11/06/00: The case for Bush
11/03/00: The Framers' Electoral wisdom
10/30/00: Political astronomy
10/27/00: Candidates condescending
10/23/00: No Partners For Peace
10/20/00: Talking peace with thugs
10/11/00: A feast of retreats
10/10/00: .. And what's gotten into the Danes?
10/05/00: The Agony of Debate
10/02/00: Senate Canvas
09/28/00: Milosevic: Not Another Saddam
09/25/00: Blaming the Voters
09/22/00: Saying No to the Euro
09/18/00: Farewell, Mr. Moynihan
09/14/00: When 'Choice' Rules
09/12/00: Colombia Illusions
09/08/00: Will He Spend It All?
09/04/00: Back in the U.S.S.R.
08/31/00: Stonewalling School Reform
08/28/00: Uphill for a California Republican
08/24/00: Sauerkraut Ice Cream
08/21/00: The Partial-Birth Censors
08/18/00: A Party to Prosperity
08/14/00: The National Scold on the Stump
08/10/00: The Thinking Person's Choice
08/07/00: The GOP of Powell And Rice
08/03/00: Panic in the Gore Camp
07/27/00: . . . Both Radical and Reassuring
07/06/00: Harry Potter: A Wizard's Return
07/03/00: Recalling the Revolution
06/29/00: An Act of Judicial Infamy
06/26/00: Life, Liberty and ... the Pursuit of Foxes
06/21/00: Fumble on Prayer
06/19/00: The unified field theory of culture
06/15/00: Schools Beset by Lawyers And Shrinks
06/12/00: Missile Defense Charade
06/07/00: The Grandparent Dissent
06/05/00: Liberal Condescension
06/01/00: Great Awakenings
05/30/00: Suddenly Social Security
05/25/00: Forget Values, Let's Talk Virtues
05/22/00: AlGore the Hysteric
05/15/00: Majestic Avenue
05/11/00: Just How Irrational Is the Exuberance?
05/08/00: Home-Run Glut
05/04/00: A Lesson Plan for Gore
05/01/00: The Hijacking of the Primaries
04/28/00: The Raid in Little Havana
04/24/00: Tinkering Again
04/17/00: A Judgment Against Hate
04/13/00: Tech- Stock Joy Ride
04/10/00: What the bobos are buying
04/06/00: A must-read horror book
04/03/00: 'Improving' the Bill of Rights
03/30/00: Sleaze, The Sequel
03/27/00: How new 'rights' will destroy freedom
03/23/00: Death and the Liveliest Writing
03/20/00: Powell is Dubyah's best bet
03/16/00: Free to Be Politically Intense
03/13/00: Runnin', Gunnin' and Gambling
03/09/00: And Now Back to Republican Business
03/06/00: As the Clock Runs Out on Bradley
03/02/00: Island of Equal Protection
02/28/00: . . . The Right Response
02/24/00: Federal Swelling
02/22/00: Greenspan Tweaks
02/17/00: Crucial Carolina (and Montana and . . .)
02/10/00: McCain's Distortions
02/10/00: The Disciplining of Austria
02/07/00: Free to Speak, Free to Give
02/02/00: Conservatives in a Changing Market
01/31/00: America's true unity day
01/27/00: For the Voter Who Can't Be Bothered
01/25/00: The FBI and the golden age of child pornography
01/20/00: Scruples and Science
01/18/00: Bradley: Better for What Ails Us
01/13/00: O'Brian Rules the Waves
01/10/00: Patron of the boom
01/06/00: In Cactus Jack's Footsteps
01/03/00: The long year
12/31/99: A Stark Perspective On a Radical Century
12/20/99: Soldiers' Snapshots of the Hell They Created
12/16/99: Star-Crossed Banner
12/13/99: Hubert Humphrey Wannabe
12/09/99: Stupidity in Seattle
12/06/99: Bradley's most important vote
12/03/99: Boys will be boys --- or you can always drug 'em
12/01/99: Confidence in the Gore Camp
11/29/99: Busing's End
11/22/99: When We Enjoyed Politics
11/18/99: Ever the Global Gloomster
11/15/99: The Politics of Sanctimony
11/10/99: Risks of Restraining
11/08/99: Willie Brown Besieged
11/04/99: One-House Town
11/01/99: Crack and Cant
10/28/99: Tax Break for the Yachting Class
10/25/99: Ready for The Big Leagues?
10/21/99: Where honor and responsibility still exist
10/18/99: Is Free Speech Only for the Media?
10/14/99: A Beguiling Amateur
10/11/99: Money in Politics: Where's the Problem?
10/08/99: Soft Thinking On Soft Money
© 2000, Washington Post Writer's Group