Rocky Mountain News
Are some ads more equal than others?
Time to pass 'first amendment restoration act'
August 26, 2004
Since we devoted an entire editorial Wednesday to denouncing a political ad aimed at Ken Salazar by the Virginia-based Americans for Job Security, permit us now to say a word on behalf of such independent advocacy groups. In just one week's time, their constitutional right to free speech will be curtailed by the single gravest assault on civil liberties approved by Congress during the past four years.
No, not the Patriot Act. We refer to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, aka McCain-Feingold.
After Sept. 2, believe it or not, Americans for Job Security will be barred from mentioning Salazar's name (or that of any other candidate) in an ad. It will be prohibited from doing so even if it wants to say only good things on a candidate's behalf. That's because McCain-Feingold bars many independent groups from referring to candidates for federal office in their ads 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. Why? The crude but truthful answer is that politicians resent criticism and given the opportunity will try to silence it. And most such ads are negative.
In recent years independent political ads have become an ever more prominent part of elections, in part because of laws restricting contributions to candidates. Egged on by campaign reform advocates, Congress decided to suppress this expression of independent political speech - hence the 30- and 60-day rules in McCain-Feingold. The law was signed by President Bush and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in one of the most disappointing decisions in years.
No one disputes that the nation's founders meant to protect political speech when they wrote the First Amendment. And yet under McCain-Feingold, the free-speech portion of the First Amendment has effectively been rewritten to state that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech except when it refers to a clearly identified federal candidate in the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election."
Fortunately, not every member of Congress has joined the conspiracy to silence independent criticism. At least 76 members of the House (including Colorado's Marilyn Musgrave and Tom Tancredo) and a handful of senators have so far signed on to the First Amendment Restoration Act, sponsored by Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md. This measure would repeal the portions of McCain-Feingold that restrict the right of some groups to refer to candidates in political advertising.
Perhaps you're wondering whether McCain-Feingold will affect the ads run by so-called 527 groups, including Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. Will the swift boat veterans be barred from mentioning John Kerry by name after Sept. 2?
Apparently not. The 527s were organized precisely to get around McCain-Feingold limits, and the Federal Election Commission has issued rules that won't restrict them until 2005. Swift Boat Veterans For Truth
and the better-funded anti-Bush 527s can thus continue to lambaste candidates right through election day.
That's as it should be. Free-wheeling speech is the hallmark of American politics and most of us had naively assumed it could never be abridged. Now that it has been, it's time to rev up the movement to restore the First Amendment.
