David R. Henderson, Ph.D. Economics

<Back

What Part of 'No Law' Doesn't Congress Get?

New York Post,  March 20, 2002

IF representatives of a particular industry lobbied for a law that gave them a monopoly on disseminating information about political campaigns and candidates, wouldn't Americans be outraged?

Of course, they would.

Such a law would contradict two important principles: first, that government should not grant monopolies, and second, that Congress should not violate freedom of speech and of the press.

Guess what: It's time for outrage.

Because the industry representatives have lobbied for such a monopoly for years, the House of Representatives has already voted for it, the Senate is about to vote for it and President Bush has made it known that if the law is passed, he will probably sign it.

The industry: newspapers and broadcasters.

The law: federal campaign-finance "reform."

Under the new law, it would be a crime for various groups to spend money on ads for or against a given candidate or ballot proposition. The restrictions would apply to the 30 days immediately preceding a primary election and the 60 days preceding a general election.

Imagine politicians' outrage if they were prevented from campaigning just before a primary or just before a general election.

That's what the law would do to non-politicians who want their say; competing voices would be silenced precisely when it matters most for them to be heard.

If a candidate, for example, had voted for restricting abortion or for restricting guns, neither a pro-choice group nor a pro-Second Amendment group would legally be able to spend money pointing out these things.

During those 30-day or 60-day periods, by contrast, newspapers and broadcasters would still be free to report, fairly or unfairly, on the various candidates. Thus, the new law would give newspapers and broadcasters a virtual monopoly on information.

"So what?" you might say.

If you, like most of us, are sick of all the attack ads around election time, wouldn't this law provide welcome relief? Indeed, it might - although never underestimate the ability of smart people to get around restrictive laws.

But even if it does provide a measure of relief, consider the cost of this relief: our freedom of speech.

When the folks at the constitutional convention passed the First Amendment, they weren't trying to give free speech and freedom of the press only to people who were rich enough to own newspapers.

They wanted everyone to have those freedoms, so that people could speak out against whatever upset them.

That's why they said, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging freedom of speech."

Makes you wonder: What part of "no law" does Congress not get?

Many of the advocates claim their goal is to keep money out of politics. But it takes a lot of money to buy a newspaper or TV station. The Dan Rathers of the world, their producers and their writers will have their say on TV every night.

The rest of us, though, who are already legally prevented from giving more than $1,000 to a candidate's campaign ($2,000 under the new law), would be further limited.

A small businessman in Queens or a teacher in Manhattan might want to give money to groups that support his or her views. But the proposed law, which might be passed this week, would prevent those groups from voicing their views, just when it most matters.

What the law really does is keep competing voices out of politics.

There's a better way.

The reason money enters politics is that politicians have so much say over so much of our lives. The more power government exerts over people's lives, the more people are willing to pay to have a say in how that power is used, for good or ill.

Those who want serious campaign reform should call, not for further violations of the Constitution, but for federal government compliance with the Constitution.

Were the federal government to limit itself to its constitutionally granted powers, it would have only a fraction of its current power over the economy.

The only way to take the money out of politics is to take the politics out of money.

<Back