The unacknowledged principle behind the recently passed House of Representatives “campaign finance reform” bill:
Established media giants (CBS, ABC, New York Times) have a constitutional right to be free of restrictions on what they air or publish. (This of course is correct).
Non-established, or less established, media people/organizations/individuals have no such constitutional right to promote the candidates, policies, and ideas they desire. The money these entities spend is called “soft money” and “soft money” is bad. Therefore, “soft money” must be outlawed.
Clearly, something is amiss here. The people who support this bill certainly know that there’s a double standard. Either they do not care, or they favor supporting free speech rights for some entities while not supporting them for others. Either way, their motives are more than suspect. Either way, this is a dangerous limitation on free speech by allowing it for some and restricting it for others.
Make sure you keep plain English and clear thinking in mind as you read about the intellectual somersaults involved in passing this legislation (which President Bush is kind-of, sort-of promising to sign). “Soft money” means money spent by non-establishment organizations; “hard money” means money spent by established organizations (CNN, The Washington Post, etc.)
Anyone who reads these established newspapers or watches these established networks knows their slant towards Big Government, paternalistic liberalism. The reason that smaller, less known publications, websites and media outlets exist is because they offer alternatives to this typical way of thinking. If one of these smaller entities or organizations wants to support a candidate with less well known and (at least at present) less popular ideas, then it will be restricted from spending; if NBC or CNN or ABC want to broadcast an hour long interview of, say, Hillary Rodham Clinton (when she runs for President in 2004 or 2008), there will be no such restriction. It’s considered free speech.
The bill is enormously complex and contradictory. Who even knows what the final version the President signs (if he does indeed sign it) will be? Who knows how many of the legislators will even read the bill they passed? It could all backfire from the point-of-view of its supporters, as is so often the case. But the very fact that such a bill — based on such blatantly unfair, erroneous and wrong principles — has passed the House is bad news for freedom and equality.
A people whose elected leaders so seriously misunderstand their country’s own fundamental principles — and even openly evade them — cannot indefinitely remain free in an increasingly hostile world.
