My friend Andrew McCarthy has an important and admonitory article over at National Review on the McCain/Feingold so-called “campaign finance reform” act. Actually, it should be called the “McCain/Feingold anti-political speech act.” John McCain, supposed conservative from Arizona, and Russ Feingold, ostentatious liberal from Wisconsin, may seem like an odd couple. But both have a passion to undermine the First Amendment by curtailing free speech in the political arena. Andrew explains:
McCain believes political speech is bad for democracy – as long, of course, as there is an exemption for mainstream media speech that swoons over “mavericks” who break with conservatives over immigration, global warming, the Bush tax cuts, etc. The Senator, however, is astute enough to know his assault on the First Amendment is wildly unpopular with the people whose nomination he seeks. So, to put their minds at ease, he told National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru last year that he was satisfied by President Bush’s 2002 decision to sign McCain/Feingold into law. He would, he assured, seek no further “legislation” to ban political speech.
Turns out the captain of the “Straight-Talk Express” left out one itsy-bitsy detail. Even as he spoke those words, he was – as an influential senator – exhorting the United States Supreme Court to tack a sweeping judicial ban onto the already extensive McCain/Feingold restrictions.
The target was Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL). This pro-life group well understood that when it comes to abortion, the action is in the federal courts. In 2004, the president was working to put his pro-life stamp on those courts by appointing conservative judges. He was being blocked by Democrats, who, though in the minority, were capitalizing on the chamber’s procedural rules to filibuster nominees for the all-important federal appellate courts. One of those Democrats was none other than Sen. Feingold. So WRTL decided to run issue ads, urging Feingold to do his constitutional duty and give the Bush nominees an up-or-down vote.
Feingold, however, was up for reelection. In the Alice in Wonderland world of McCain/Feingold, that meant it was ostensibly against the law for an interest group in our democracy to utter his name in “electioneering statements” on a matter of vital public policy 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election – that is, in the 90 days when public attention is at its height and political speech matters most. As the First Amendment ensures that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” WRTL had this crazy notion that McCain/Feingold violated its fundamental rights.
Obviously, McCain is all for “straight talk” as long as it is he – or the New York Times – doing the talking
We have all become inured to assaults on free speech from the Left. After all, that’s a large part of what political correctness is all about: free speech for me, but not for thee. It’s so blatant that the phrase “political correctness” is often accompanied by a smile–it’s an an uneasy smile, to be sure, but it is a smile nonetheless. “Politically correct” describes some exaggerated bit of left-wing moralism–so exaggerated that it is hard to take seriously. We smile when we read about an elite American college that has enrolled the sin of “lookism“–that is, the unacceptable belief that some people are more attractive than others–into its catalogue of punishable offenses. We laugh when hearing that a British academic has condemned Frosty the Snowman as a white “male icon” that helps “to substantiate an ideology upholding a gendered spatial/social system,” whatever that is. We scoff when we hear about the University of Michigan professor who complains that J. K. Rowling’s popular Harry Potter books “conventionally repeat much of the same sexist and white patriarchal biases of classical fairy tales.” We smile, we laugh, we scoff. But most of us do so uneasily.
Why the uneasiness? There are several reasons. In the first place we know that such strictures, though preposterous, are not without consequence. Indeed, the phenomenon of political correctness is a great teacher of the often overlooked lesson that the preposterous and the malign can cohabit happily. Just because something is preposterous does not mean it is not dangerous.
There is also the fact that the odor of malignity, of thuggishness, is never far from the lairs of political correctness. The student accused of lookism can be severely penalized for the offense, as can the student accused of racism, “homophobia,” or “mis-directed laughter.” In some cases, the academic thought police even attempt to regulate what is not said, as when an editor of a student newspaper was removed from his post because he had given “insufficient coverage” to minority events. We laugh when we read about poor Frosty, but the laughter dies when we consider that the professor who would have us melt Frosty is also someone responsible for the education of students. It is amusingly ludicrous to burden Mrs. Rowling’s entertainments with feminist rhetoric, but then we remember that books can be banned or slighted for less.
It is worth bearing this in mind as we contemplate the implications of the McCain-Feingold act. As I say, we’re used to such things on college campuses and, increasingly, in the workplace. But it is dispiriting, to say the least, to see such an assault on free speech in its most originary form–argument and the expression of opinion about basic political controversies and candidates–under attack by a man who advertises himself as a conservative and champion of individual liberty.
John McCain – one man, one vote, one time.
GWB’s failure to veto McCain-Feingold is a black mark on his legacy; it’s no excuse that he may have hoped the Supreme Court would overturn it. But Bush isn’t on the ballot — McCain is — and I won’t forget how he bribed the Congress by protecting the incumbents from criticism prior to reelection and bribed the main stream media by exempting them.
McCain-Feingold is unconscionable as well as unconstitutional — I don’t care what McCain or the Supreme Court say.
Actually, it should be called the “McCain/Feingold anti-political speech act.”
I’m more with Geo. Will on this: it should be called the McCain-Feingold protection for incumbents act:
http://tinyurl.com/ysuq77
I’m not sure of exactly what John McCain is, but he’s certainly not a conservative. His attempts to quell free speech, and his alignment with a nut case like Feingold, tells me that he’s not a man I want to see in control of the nation. And of course, if you take into consideration his idiotic approach to the immigration problem, what you have is a morass of dumb-a$$.
It’s scary that he’s doing so well in the polls, but then the media likes to promote the “maverick” who has about as much chance getting elected as Kucinich.
I’m glad someone has decided to bring this too-seldom-discussed matter up. I’d like to add two things.
First, Fred Thompson was an enthusiastic supporter of this bill, and, according to McCain, was instrumental in getting it passed.
Second, the WRTL case split three ways, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy wanted McCain-Feingold declared unconstitutional. Alito and Roberts kind of agreed, but just wanted to use that case to declare one small section of the bill unconstitutional. Those five prevailed, with a very narrow decision, which left most of McCain-Feingold intact. Four justices-Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer dissented–all felt that McCain-Feingold is constitutional and is a great idea to boot.
Now, if McCain or Thompson wins– men who also feel that the bill is constitutional and a great idea to boot–what kind of Justices are they going to nominate? Ones who share their vision of what’s constitutional and what isn’t, I would imagine.
According to the article you linked, it’s University of Minnesota. Not that we don’t have our nutcases here in Michigan, but this particular nutcase isn’t ours.
RK: I cannot bear the thought of John McCain as the Republican candidate for POTUS. Yes, I know he was a war hero – about 40 years ago – and I salute him for that. But having seen him in action in the government for the last few decades, I find him entirely unsuited for the job of Chief Executive in 2008.
He is too old, and represents the status quo in Congress. Do not forget the Keating Five scandal. He has shown on multiple occasions that he is no friend of the US Constitution or it’s Bill of Rights. He lacks executive temperament. He seems more intent on serving his own ego and legacy than in humbly serving the people. He has failed to apply conservative principles of governance in the Senate. He is a current Washington Insider. He is on the wrong side on the issue of illegal immigration.
I count the above as too many negatives for me to support his candidacy.
I saw a few minutes of McCain campaigning in Michigan (today?).
Someone asked about the Virginia Tech shooting, how to prevent similar.
I swear McCain was about to call for restrictions on gun ownership, and then after a big pause, caught himself.
So, paraphrasing, he just said that we need to make sure that known unstable people can’t get guns.
Except, unlike McCain, Thompson has admitted he made a mistake and it should be scrapped for full disclosure.
Screw McCain, I’m writing in Ron Paul this November. Vote for a candidate who understands what liberty is.
SDN,
In the article you cited, he said he was not ready to scrap it. Further, he didn’t say it was a mistake, just that it wasn’t working out the way it was intended, whatever that’s supposed to mean. There’s nothing to indicate that he’s changed his position on its constitutionality or inherit goodness, wiseness, and justness, just, perhaps that the genius of the people has somehow thwarted it.
The sad reality is that there is no decent motives to be ascribed to the men who wrote and fought for that legislation.
“…a man who advertises himself as a conservative and champion of individual liberty.”
You need to check your premises.
Conservatism was born of religious reaction against the Enlightenment (specifically its roots in the reliance upon reason); the Left is merely the anti-Enlightenment, a perversion of that salutory culture engineered by Immanuel Kant.
Individual liberty is a principle born of the Enlightenment. Its current association with conservatism is a consequence of political expedience, no more; it is an adopted orphan that ultimately does not belong there. It is NOT a “principle of conservatism”; if you want to see what those really are, you need to read “The Conservative Mind” by Russell Kirk, for starters.
McCain-Feingold is definitely at odds with freedom and liberty; in the original meaning, it is certainly an illiberal, un-American piece of legislation. But there are no grounds to call it “un-conservative” — unless conservatism has become something other than what Kirk and others of his ilk say it is.
There are a lot of reasons why I might support McCain’s run for President. McCain-Feingold is the reason I will absolutely NOT support him.
Sunday Links
Spies for Al Qaida. Big Lizard. The bad guys seem to slink away right before an assault. Teaching teachers not to teach. h/t, Minding the CampusThe real meaning of academic letters of recommendation.John McCain: Enemy of free speechKrugman just can’t stop
I think McCain Feingold a mistake too, but an honest one. It is not going anyplace given the free speech enabling media environment created by the Net. Like Fred, I thought it was worth a try but changed my mind. McCain in his Pajamas media interview with Roger Simon recently came right out and said “I’m an idealist’ and like a lot of idealists he gets things out of balance – goes too far. I was particularly amused when he came out with the standard left wing explanation for Islamism – lack of economic opportunity. And then showed he was getting it when he said it was ‘something differnt’ when young Muslim MDs hurled themselves in flames at an airport in Scotland. To his credit I think he understands the GWOT the best of any candidate with Rudy and Fred a close second. I also agree with the above that he doesn’t have the executive temperament. But he understands that Islamofascism is the defining issue of our times and that promising to repeat the national disaster of Vietnam as the Dems are doing is the defining issue of this election. I’ll vote for a drover’s dog as we say in Australia before I vote for defeat of my country – McCain Feingold be damned.
I would invite everyone to view Ezra Levant’s thoughtcrime trial -in Canada, before the NEWSPEAK named “Human Rights Commission”. They are interrogating him because some islamist radical Iman had his “feelings” hurt , apparently Levant’s paper published the “mohammed” cartoons, and now he is the subject of “thought-cleansing.” His You -tube clips of the kangaroo court are a chilling view of what can happen to free speech. And a inspiration to those who would stand up to petty dictators. At this juncture, it is appropriate to quote my favorite line from the Declaration of Independence
” for he has erected a multitude of new offices ,and sent forth a swarm of officers to harass us and eat out our substance…”
McCain-Feingold doesn’t bother me that much. I oppose it, but it is not going to play a role in deciding my vote. Foreign policy and national security are basically my only issues. I am angry about McCain’s take on immigration, but its not enough to make me prefer a democrat over him. It’s definitely a reason why I’m not campaigning for him. My primary vote is still undecided: Romney is not making a good foreign policy case, Rudy is a scandal magnet with no family values, McCain is not much of a conservative, Fred is almost too conservative to win the general election.
One thing I would ask many of the commenters here – do you really think McCain is worse than Hillary or Obama? Would it matter if he chose a hardcore conservative VP?