Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World

I found myself in a political Alice In Wonderland today, listening to debate over the 527 Reform Act (HR 513).

First, there was the often-rational David Dreier (R-CA), chairman of the Rules Committee, who argued in the House that Democrats should support the 527 Reform Act because they generally supported McCain-Feingold. He said, “To be consistent, opponents of this bill would have to oppose McCain-Feingold”. Dreier further said that he opposed McCain-Feingold as a restriction on free speech, but supports this bill. So while he was trying to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Democrats who supported McCain-Feingold and oppose the current bill, Dreier instead demonstrated his own hypocrisy and that of too many Republicans.

On the other hand, Rep. Alcee Hastings, a liberal Democrat from Florida, spoke glowingly of Pat Toomey and Americans for Tax Fairness while making his pitch against the 527 Reform Act. Curiouser and curiouser….

Rep Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the Minority Whip, pointed out that Reps Hastert, Boehner, Dreier, DeLay, and Blunt all voted against McCain-Feingold. He quoted Rep. Dreier in 2002 (regarding McCain-Feingold) as saying “So we have these attempts being made by some to impose extraordinary, onerous regulations on people, jeopardizing their right to come together....I believe that is wrong.”

Dreier responded that passing the 527 Reform Act is simply being consistent with the existing McCain-Feingold Act. Yet most of what Stalin or Mao or Robespierre did was also consistent. Consistency is not necessarily an important goal of regulation, especially when it attempts to be consistent with a prior error.

Republican Congresswoman Candice Miller (R-MI) made the incredible statement that Democrats “complained about Swift Vote Veterans For Truth” and that “now is their opportunity to strike back.” She further said that 527 activity allowed money to influence politics in a less-regulated way than before McCain-Feingold. This is not true, but even if it were, why then, instead of completely muzzling the political speech represented by campaign contributions, does nobody suggest repealing or substantially changing McCain-Feingold?

Even among the most “conservative” members of Congress, their default position today is to increase regulation. Jefferson and Madison would be ashamed of Republicans, and would shake their heads in dismay at the damage done to the very foundation of our nation by eroding our most fundamental right. And if a politician were not interested in regulating based on fidelity to the Constitution, don't they realize that regulating money in politics is like putting a rock in the middle of a river and hoping that the water will just stop there?

The Democrats are exactly right that this bill is “in front of us for political reasons, not for principle” and is “using legislative power to attack the opposition”. The Democrats kicked the GOP’s collective butt with their effective implementation of 527 activism in elections. Christopher Shays' (R-CT) assertion that the Dems won the 527 war because the Republicans were simply abiding by the intent of McCain-Feingold made me laugh out loud. Instead of learning and catching up, the GOP is instead willing to trample the First Amendment simply because the Democrats did a better job thus far of reacting to the McCain-Feingold Political Speech Repression Act.

David Dreier’s claims that “all we’re trying to do is close a loophole” reminds me of something a hangman might say to an innocent man, wrongly convicted, standing on the gallows with a rope around his neck.

Later today we should get the vote on the 527 Reform Act. I hope there are enough principled Republicans like Mike Pence to defeat this assault on political free speech, the very speech that our Founders had in the forefront of their minds when crafting the First Amendment.

[Click on Mike Pence's name above (or HERE for a PDF version) to read his outstanding testimony to the House Rules Committee supporting freeing up political speech rather than muzzling it. Mike Pence is my political hero of the month....]

Continuing follow-up...

3:10 PM Mountain Time:

I just heard Congressman Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) make this outrageous statement...quoting as best I can remember it, but it's essentially accurate: "We should not allow 527 groups to waste money by spending their soft money political contributions while our political parties get weaker." My jaw just about hit the floor. It was the most brazen statement of a politician willing to burn the Constitution to maintain his own power.

3:20 PM Mountain Time:

The Truth Rears Its Head!!!Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) just said "Regulation for partisan gain is all that campaign finance reform has ever been about!" Yet then follows that beautiful clarity with support for 527 reform. He argued that there is a problem with "moving the source of political speech away from the candidate" and that this causes negative political ads, so therefore let's pass the 527 Reform Act. While his conclusion is wrong today, I very much appreciated Rep. Doolittle's passionate attack on McCain-Feingold and on regulation of political speech. He is the first voice I've heard during this debate calling for its repeal. It's too bad that he had to say "In the meantime, support this (527 Reform Act) bill."

3:30 PM Mountain Time:

Personal Note: It makes me a bit ill to listen to the lefist Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) argue my position. The Democrats in DC are simply horrible in their lack of respect for liberty and the Constitution, and they were the big supporters of McCain-Feingold (regulation for partisan gain, don't forget). It's a travesty that the GOP has put people like me in the position of relying on people like Lofgren to protect our liberty. Or guys like Rahm Emanuel who just said that the American people have "low self-esteem for the Congress".

3:39 PM Mountain Time:

Why do all these politicians talk about "unregulated" political participation as if it's a bad thing? Isn't the point of the First Amendment clearly and obviously that political speech must NOT be regulated? All that is required for politics that is not corrupt in fact or in perception would be immediate and full disclosure of political contributions.

3:43 PM Mountain Time:

The Democrats just yielded time to Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who is talking about the Alien and Sedition acts, one of the most shameful periods of political repression in our history. He is arguing that if 527 "reform" passes, the money will go to 501(c)(4) groups instead, and we will just be back with the same debate again in a few years. He is posing this hypothetical: What if the Democrats gain the majority in the next election? Will they then try to "level the playing field" by "making the same arguments against talk radio, making the same claims against Rush Limbaugh that the Republicans are making against George Soros". Flake, Pence....which other Republicans will be on the side of Liberty?

3:47 PM Mountain Time:

OK, the answer to the last sentence includes "Not Christopher Shays" who just made this odd argument in support of his legislation: "We passed campaign finance reform mostly with the support of Democrats, and there wasn't any talk about free speech then...." Ohmygod...that's a Republican? Well, not really...it's Chris Shays, primary House enemy of the First Amendment. Shays is mad because the legislative ropes which he used to restrain political speech were not tied tightly enough to shut us all up and thus protect incumbents even more than they already are. Shays' calls for "consistency" remind me, as I said before, of the sort of "consistent" behavior of Mao.

4:00 PM Mountain Time:

The vote starts....I can't say I'm highly optimistic. If I were a betting man, I would bet that the bill passes...but I hope there are enough liberty-loving Republicans to prove me wrong.

4:33 PM Mountain Time:

The 527 Reform Act passed by a vote of 218-209. Thanks to the courageous Republicans who voted against the bill. I wish there had been more of them. In a later posting I will give the information of how Republicans voted.