Imagine if the DISCLOSE Act had passed several months ago, and were now in place. Now imagine if the following ad—let’s say it were, hypothetically, Democracy 21 paying for the ad—had begun running today in Congressman Chris Van Hollen’s Maryland district, where he has a Sept. 14 primary:
“Announcer: Chris Van Hollen is leading an effort to pass reform legislation that is effective. He’s being challenged by interest groups in Washington, D.C. who do not want to disclose their donors while they make campaign-related expenditures.
Congressman Van Hollen is challenging this an anti-reform position, and now he’s being attacked for being too much of a reformer.
Call Congressman Van Hollen and tell him to continue to oppose the anti-reformers ‘Alice in Wonderland’ view of Washington DC.”
Now, imagine that instead of running an ad, the head of Democracy 21 were instead to simply get on the phone with a reporter from Roll Call writing an article about last week’s collapse of the DISCLOSE Act, and provide pretty much the same commentary to appear in a news story:
Wertheimer defended Van Hollen’s performance. “He is leading an effort to pass reform legislation that is effective, and he’s being challenged by interest groups in town who, bottom line, do not want to disclose their donors while they make campaign-related expenditures. That’s a non-viable position from a policy perspective,” Wertheimer said. “That is an anti-reform position, and if Rep. Van Hollen is challenging that and being attacked for being too much of a reformer, then it tells me we’re living in ‘Alice in Wonderland’ in this city.”
Not much difference between the hypothetical ad and the quote in the news story, is there? Just two that seem important:
1. The ad would quite likely fall under the jurisdiction of the DISCLOSE Act and require Democracy 21 to disclose their members and donors of $600 or more, file various reports and affirmations, swearing that no foreign nationals had anything to do with the ad, that it wasn’t coordinated with a candidate, notify the government that it was engaging in political speech, and endure other onerous and intrusive burdens. The quotes appearing in the news article, by contrast, have no regulatory burdens.
2. The ad is hypothetical. The news story, and quotes by Wertheimer, are not—they are in today’s Roll Call.
This is part of the multi-tiered system of privileged speakers that the so-called campaign finance reform community endorse, where the political speech of some is accorded a special status, such as those citizens prominent and connected enough to have the media call on them for their opinions, opinions that are then shared far and wide through newspapers, radio and television newscasts, and other mediums.
Most Americans, of course, don’t have political reporters on their speed-dial, and aren’t quite prominent enough to get a call from the media asking them their opinions on the issues of the day. The only way most Americans can ensure their voice is heard and is part of the political discussion is to join with like-minded citizens, pool their resources, and collectively exercise their First Amendment rights by purchasing ad time on television or the radio, or placing an ad in a publication.
Sadly, of course, so-called campaign finance reform is designed to block most citizens from having the opportunity to have their voices heard, while of course leaving untouched those like Fred Wertheimer who can say kind and supportive things about a candidate for Congress without any restrictions at all (Van Hollen has a Sept. 14 primary, and we are within the 90-day period before the primary that “reformers” insist should be the most heavily regulated and restricted).
As Nan Aaron of the Alliance for Justice wrote in a letter signed by dozens of liberal-leaning organizations opposing the DISCLOSE Act with the ‘Shotgun Sellout‘ special exemption for the NRA:
It is inappropriate and inequitable to create a two-tiered system of campaign finance laws and First Amendment protections, one for the most powerful and influential and another for everyone else. There is no legitimate justification for privileging the speech of large entities, or of reducing the burdens of compliance for the biggest organizations yet retaining them for the smallest.
It isn’t just the NRA that is able to get an exemption from speech regulation masquerading as “reform,” but also any other prominent and well-connected group or individual that doesn’t have to spend money to promote their message and can instead rely on a sympathetic or at least respectful press, or celebrity, or entertainment industry, or other means of communicating with the broader public.
The only thing worth quibbling with in Nan Aaron’s statement is the term “two-tiered,” because there are so many tiers of privileged speakers in the world of campaign finance “reform” that “two” is a gross understatement.
