Parts of an e-mail from Jim Babka of RealCampaignReform.org:
Life is interesting, isn't it? Why, just a few months ago,
liberal groups were joining hands and singing folk songs,
hailing John McCain, Russ Feingold, and the other
incumbents for "saving democracy from the clutches of
special interests" with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
of 2002 (BCRA). MoveOn was one of those groups.
But now, MoveOn has a new problem. And a well-written and
highly accurate essay, written by the FEC Working Group and
published by MoveOn illustrates how awful this new problem
is.
For reasons that will become obvious in a moment, "I feel
their pain."
Here's their problem. They have a $5 million donor. He's
helped them finance a bevy of anti-Bush ads. But thanks to
McCain-Feingold, they're seeing their rights trimmed by a
proposed set of rules coming from the bureaucracy empowered
to oversee the BCRA - the Federal Election Commission
(FEC).
OK, to be fair to them, they didn't really expect the
Republicans to actually ask the FEC to use this newfound
power in such heinous ways. After all, whatever happened to
free speech and free press?
[...]
But now, MoveOn wants to rewrite history. Here's a direct
quote,
"Nothing in the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law or
the Supreme Court's decision upholding it provides any
basis for these rules. That law is only about banning
federal candidates from using unregulated contributions
("soft money"), and banning political parties from doing
so, because of their close relationship to those
candidates. It's clear that, with one exception relating
to running broadcast ads close to an election, the new
law wasn't supposed to change what independent nonprofit
interest groups can do, including political
organizations (527's) that have never before been
subject to regulation by the FEC."
That's just not accurate.
And I should know. In addition to being a plaintiff in the
BCRA case, RCR built the most comprehensive web-site on the
worldwide web for the pro-1st Amendment side in the area of
campaign finance reform. We filed two amicus briefs with
the U.S. Supreme Court arguing for Free Press rights. We
lobbied the U.S. House when they were debating their
version of this law - Shays-Meehan - generating over 3,000
letters to Congress.
[...]
The left-wing McCainanites (money in politics is the root
of evil crowd) argued that there was a Hydraulic Principle
in campaign finance. The Hydraulic Principle is that water
will seep out of a crack on a hydraulic cylinder.
Similarly, if limits are placed on political parties (Title
I of the law), then it would seep to other places,
including non-profit groups (like MoveOn).
The Court explicitly stated that such an assumption was
"reasonable."
For three years RCR pointed out over and over, that there
would be what MoveOn is now calling a "chilling effect" on
free speech in campaigns.
It's the old Law of Unintended Consequences. The Left loved campaign finance reform until their guy was no longer running the Executive Branch, and -gasp- they never thought their own law stifling political speech would be used against them!
To be fair I don't know that MoveOn itself existed back when McCain-Feingold was first being hashed out, but it was their boys (and girls) on Capitol Hill who foisted this thing on us.
This is another example of my pet theory, yet unnamed, that activists on the Left and the Right would be much less eager to promote new regulation if they would just stop to consider what it would look like with their political opposition running the government.
It sounds like this - if you like the idea of universal healthcare just imagine that giant new bureaurocracy with John Ashcroft in charge, deciding what treatments get how much funding, and who has access to your medical records.
And if you like expanded homeland security measures to restrict the rights of suspected terrorists, imagine that Hillary Clinton is in command, deciding who is or isn't a suspected terrorist.
If those two images don't give you pause...
(Read on only for the full text of the e-mail)