From Deseret News archives:

Can't divorce money, politics

Published: Thursday, June 28, 2007 12:15 a.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
In politics, money cannot be separated from speech. A lesser-known candidate needs money to get his or her message across. The flaw with campaign spending limits is that they benefit well-known incumbents.

And the flaw in a federal law limiting so-called soft-money contributions from corporations or interest groups is that it violates free speech rights that belong to all Americans.

The U.S. Supreme Court demonstrated this week that it understands this. By a 5-4 decision, it struck down a narrow portion of the McCain-Feingold law that banned corporations and unions from airing "issue ads" that mention a candidate for federal office within 60 days of a federal election and 30 days of a primary.

As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, "Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election."

The ruling did not go as far as to strike down the entire law, which also keeps political parties from raising unlimited amounts of money from donors, including corporations and unions, which then are passed on to individual campaigns. That's too bad. Money may indeed be a corrupting influence in politics, but, as an earlier Supreme Court ruling stated, "Money, like water, will always find an outlet." A ban in one area simply leads to more creative ways to connect money and politicians in other areas.

Story continues below
At its heart, the First Amendment's free-speech guarantees were written to protect the right of the people to criticize their government. "Issue ads" generally do exactly that, even as they often urge voters to support a change in government. That right ought to trump all other concerns about big business and special interests bribing politicians through contributions.

Or, as Roberts put it, "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

The only safeguard for the public is to require immediate and full disclosure of all contributions and their sources.

The American political system does indeed have a problem. It is that the voting public is apathetic, disengaged and cynical. Part of this cynicism comes from the influence of well-heeled donors. But much of it comes from a lack of meaningful political debate. This problem must be addressed but not at the expense of constitutional rights.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

previousnext

Latest comments

5A: Bingham rolls to title game

Bingham's got a lot of talent for having a bunch of Juniors and sophomores....

Ben Cahoon is a class act!!

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge,...

There is a VERY special place in hell for guys like this...Even ANIMALS know...

RE:Joe & Exactly. I tend to see the opposite way. I think that when Dwill...

Joe & Exactly are typical people who don't understand the game of basketball,...

Can BYU root for (ick) Utah Utes?

I guess we only see what we want to see. But, the fact is that if BYU had...

It would be great if BYU could pull this off. Never count out a team that...

That's what i heard too!

Letters: Christian founders

Washington and Franklin believed in Providence, not Got. Franklin started to...

Advertisements
Advertisement