Meredith McGeehee, a lobbyist for the Campaign Legal Center, has a post up on CLC’s blog, that purports to explain opposition to campaign finance reform in three easy lessons. Noting that former Representative Tom DeLay and Representative John Doolittle have been wrapped up in scandals – which do not include violations of the McCain-Feingold bill – and that former Representative Bob Ney is in prison for taking bribes – not campaign contributions, but bribes – Ms. McGeehee notes that all three opposed to the McCain-Feingold bill. She writes, "it seems fair enough to ask," – and so she does – if it is simply coincidence that the three opposed McCain-Feingold.
Of course, the cynical might point out that the lead sponsor of the McCain-Feingold bill was John McCain, a man once caught up in scandal of his own, one directly involving campaign finance, called the "Keating Five" scandal. They might ask, "Is it simple coincidence that William Jefferson – still under investigation for $90,000 in cash found in his congressional office refrigerator – voted for the House version of McCain-Feingold, Shays-Meehan, the same bill DeLay, Doolittle, and Ney opposed?" Who knows? One might also ask, is it simple coincidence that a bill such as McCain-Feingold restricts some sources of political influence – those not wielded by Ms. McGeehee and the other folks at the Campaign Legal Center – while leaving other sources of political influence – those wielded by Ms. McGeehee, the Campaign Legal Center, and its large foundation funders – untouched? Because, let’s face it, Ms. McGeehee, a registered lobbyist, and the folks at CLC wield far more political influence than the average American – even the average American businessman and "fat cat."
McGeehee does graciously concede that opponents of McCain-Feingold could probably "claim with some legitimacy" – some, at least – that their opposition had it origins in, "a certain ideological libertarianism and their notion of modern day conservatism." Apparently, though, there is no possibility that it had origins in the failure of past reforms, or the rights protected by the First Amendment, or concerns that the bill would be bad for political competition, or a belief – since proven correct – that the McCain-Feingold law would not solve the problems it claimed to solve. Still, it’s a nice concession for her to make, given that over 200 senators and congressmen voted against the bill, and four members of the Supreme Court would have found most of it unconstitutional (and all nine found some part of it unconstitutional).
But whatever motivates people to support or oppose particular bits of legislation, we agree when McGeehee when she warns, "Corruption is the constant, tempting companion of power, whoever wields it. Fanned by hubris, power can and often does blind the powerful who are the last ones to realize how far they have gone over the line."
We find no fault in that statement. That’s why, we believe, the First Amendment was originally adopted. It was seen as far too dangerous to give government the power to police political speech.
