In an opinion piece this morning, the LA Times takes on a recent NY Times editorial that demands a crackdown on independent political speech under the guise of "fair elections."
In his piece, the LA Times Michael McGough notes, "a ‘fair’ election in this context means ones in which voters are shielded from the propaganda of special interest groups (but not, presumably, from the recommendations of the New York Times editorial board). I have previously described this as the ‘high doctrine’ of campaign finance reform. It holds that the law should not just guard against bribery and corruption in the political process but should aim to ‘level the playing field’ by reducing the advantages conferred on some candidates and citizens by the fact that they have more money than somebody else.
McGough goes on to say that the "1st Amendment is a significant barrier to the sort of ‘fair’ elections desired by the New York Times – elections in which special-interest groups (but not newspapers or Oprah!) are prevented from saying too much about candidates for public office lest their message change a voter’s mind. Huckabee was right to tell the Elks that ‘your vote counts as much as a person who can write a check for $100,000.’ But their votes – and all of ours – will be influenced by messages that require the writing of checks, as well as the framing of arguments, to get into circulation. If that’s anti-democratic, so is the 1st Amendment."
There truly is no purer or more fundamental form of speech than groups of citizens speaking to their fellow citizens about issues that can literally change the nation. Often political speech spurred by citizen groups force politicians outside of their campaign bubble to address issues which concern voters but that the politicians may otherwise prefer to ignore. If anything, such speech should be encouraged.