Home > Blog > American Leadership Project
BLOG
American Leadership Project
Published on February 21, 2008
Category: Political Committees & 527s
The pro-speech regulation community appears for the first time in this election cycle to have found an egregious example of independent speech and its name is the "American Leadership Project." In today's Washington Post, "campaign finance reform experts" (experts in reform) say that ALP's advertisement has many "troubling aspects", including the fact that the "group is not part of an established effort to exert political influence in Washington." Assuming that the pro-regulation groups also do not endorse the inverse - established efforts to exert political influence - what they really mean to say is that they are opposed to all independent speech.
There are two lenses through which to examine ALP's efforts. The first looks through the existing regulatory structure and the second sees the regulatory traps of the modern campaign finance regime for what they are - restrictions on core political speech.
The first would see that there is nothing in the ad's language that is probative of "major purpose." The ad simply encourages individuals to call Hillary Clinton so that populist domestic economic issues remain in the spotlight. It does not mention Obama by name and there is no reference to the election.
The second recognizes the mock horror of it all: ALP is actually telling citizens to tell Hillary to keep fighting, and on the eve of the election, no less!
The only truly troubling aspect of ALP's efforts is that current campaign finance regulations bar them from being able to expressly advocate for their preferred candidate (if that is what they wish to do) in order to avoid having to register as a political committee and subject themselves to $5,000 contribution limits.
But the freedom to engage in express advocacy, if they wish, is not the only issue raised by ALP. ALP probably really does care about the issues mentioned. By hitching them to Hillary's candidacy, they draw more attention to their issues. They make the issues more salient for all involved and they make Obama more likely to make similar promises on these issues.
There is no nexus of corruption here, so why does the pro-regulation community want to smother the ad if it is campaign speech? By smothering it, they smother issue speech as well. Why should there be a difference? If ALP just talked about these issues without mentioning Hillary at all, would they think it OK? If so, why do they think Americans should have less First Amendment protection when discussing candidates?
Ironically, those that now decry ALP are largely reaping what they sowed in McCain-Feingold. Citizens will always care who gets elected and rightfully want to support candidates with whom they agree and oppose those with whom they disagree. Organizations like ALP allow citizens to do just that.
ALP brings an important voice to the debate and voters need no "protection" from it. Voters are perfectly capable of deciding what messages matter and which do not. The important thing is that the voices are heard.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/trackback/american-leadership-project
Login or Sign-Up to Comment
