Wes Vernon
Saturday, March 17, 2001

This deals with "issue ads," which would be banned 60 days before an election or 30 days before a primary if that ad criticizes or praises a candidate for public office.

Such ads are now perfectly legal provided they do not specifically advocate the election or defeat of any federal candidate. You can praise or condemn a candidate all you want in such an ad. You just can’t use the words "Vote for" or "Vote against."

Many groups on both sides use their organization’s funds (what is called "soft money") to promote issues without advocating for or against a given candidate.

Many tax-exempt groups, especially Second Amendment organizations opposing gun control, are concerned that one part of the McCain-Feingold legislation says essentially the following: If the organization does engage in such issue advertising and pays for it out of its general treasury, the group would be required to reveal the list of its members or contributors who have donated $1,000 or more to the group.

Cleta Mitchell, a campaign finance and election law attorney and a partner in the Washington firm Sullivan and Mitchell, tells NewsMax.com that this requirement, if enacted, would have a "chilling effect" on the activities of citizens who want their voices to be heard on issues of importance to them.

Circumventing the Court

The legislation, she says, is an attempt to avoid previous Supreme Court decisions that have restricted government’s right to abridge the free speech guaranteed in the First Amendment.

It is clearly "unconstitutional," she adds. "It is intimidating and is an egregious" effort that would "suppress free association and the right of people to petition their government."

Of course, once the bill is passed, if it is, then those who are victims of it can take their case to court and, in all probability, will have the measure declared unconstitutional. But, as Mitchell points out, the litigation would be a long, expensive and arduous process. It still amounts to harassment for legitimate political activism protected by the First Amendment.

Many grassroots conservatives can recount instances where ordinary citizens have been bullied and abused because they belonged to or supported this or that organization. Some have lost their jobs or been ostracized in their communities, depending on what kind of a hatchet job the media did on the particular groups to which they belonged.

To open membership and donor lists to the prying eyes of anyone, including the IRS or any other federal agency whose bureaucrat may want to score points with a president or lawmaker who dislikes a particular group, is not what the United States of America is all about, in the view of McCain-Feingold opponents.

Mitchell refers to this as "a vast left-wing conspiracy to silence conservative voices."

On Friday, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., the prime sponsors of the bill, took their show on the road again with an appearance in Annapolis, Md., where they cautioned supporters of the legislation to be on guard against any "crippling amendments" (such as protecting free speech?) that might be offered in the course of Senate debate.

The fear that the bill would have the effect, if not the intent, of shutting up conservatives gains additional credibility in view of second thoughts by some liberals on Capitol Hill.

'We Ought to Actually Read This Thing'

"All of a sudden, some of my colleagues who have been promoting this bill for months are starting to say to each other, ‘Hey, you know, we ought to actually read this thing and see what’s in it,’ " a congressman told NewsMax.com.

The reason for the second thoughts is that Democrats are realizing that their party raised a lot of "soft money" in the last campaign, surpassing the Republicans in that area by $2.6 million, according to Common Cause.

Now, all of a sudden, this is not just a bill to silence Republicans. It can backfire on Democrats too.

"Oh, but the issue is so good to sell to voters who crave something that gives them such a warm, fuzzy feeling and has such a nice ring to it," comments one political observer.

"The Democrats will probably vote for it and hope that it dies," says another.

Meanwhile, as reported earlier by NewsMax.com, President Bush has weighed in with his approval of campaign finance reform provided that any ban on soft money is accompanied by an increase in allowable hard money contributions and that the final bill would bar unions and corporations from political activity unless they secure the permission of labor union members and corporate stockholders. Further, the president would not ban soft or unregulated money from individuals.

In the past, an amendment barring the use of union dues to support political causes without membership consent has been labeled a "poison pill" by the legislation supporters. McCain, mindful of a need to keep his Democratic allies on the reservation, has rejected such a proposal unless accompanied by a requirement that corporate shareholders also give their approval to corporate donations.

Now Bush has said, in effect, OK, let’s have both. Put up or shut up.

Neither labor nor business is likely to applaud any such restriction. The fact that many union members must retain their membership to keep their jobs and feed their families while stockholders can sell their shares without any such basic concerns apparently escapes McCain.

White House operatives earlier this week had assured conservatives that they would like the president’s position on campaign finance "reform." It would appear to some of them that the president is now laying down a challenge to the so-called reformers and calling their bluff.

In private, at least, many Democrats and Republicans alike will admit the McCain-Feingold bill is probably unconstitutional.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Bush Administration

Related Products:
Have an Opinion About This? Send an URGENT PriorityGram Today.