iCitizenForum by Colonial Williamsburg

Costs of campaigning bring First Amendment questions

The debate about where one person’s freedom of speech begins and another’s ends always crops up during elections.

On one side, First Amendment proponents say that government should place no restrictions on the political speech called campaigning, even if the speech comes at a cost few can afford.

The Web site OpenSecrets.org tracks campaign fundraising nationwide. It reports this: “The (2008) candidates for president have broken nearly all fundraising records, amassing approximately $800 million, even before the two major parties choose their nominees for the November ballot. By some predictions, the eventual nominees will need to raise $500 million apiece to compete — a record sum.”

And those who oppose restrictions on campaign fundraising say that if you can raise it, you can spend it on anything you like. They say curtailing the gathering and spending means curtailing free speech. They say that the words “Congress shall make no laws … ” mean “no,” even though Congress began formally dabbling in the campaign finance issue back in 1971 by passing the Federal Election Campaign Act.

On the other side of the aisle sit those who argue that excessive spending by candidates who can use their accumulated wealth or who have access to that of others allows them to “buy” elections. They can drown the voices of opponents in a sea of media play that makes it impossible for anyone, including highly qualified public servants, to stand a chance come Election Day.

For the purposes of transparency, I admit that I sit with the “no means ‘no’ ” group. But my position hinges on a key element and one that ties to why I write for this Web site and why I hope more people choose to utilize its resources.

People truly involved in their communities and their countries can and do go well beyond slickly-produced campaign ads to measure the merit of candidates.

If we really want to negate the impact of truckloads of money poured into campaigns, we can simply ignore the money-backed messages and turn to myriad sources of information that can lead us to better a better understanding of candidates and better governance.

“Yeah, right, like voters have a chance against the assault launched by candidates who raise millions to sway their votes,” you say. “That’s idealistic, impractical folly.”

Perhaps, but I think idealism can trump some other “isms” when coupled with active, consistent civic involvement: skepticism, pessimism and elitism.”

I want to believe that one question a candidate might ask after spending a half-billion dollars on a campaign and losing is: “Did I spend too much money?”

Meanwhile, for starters, let’s try a little election engagement exercise: Find the names of some “big spenders,” who embrace their First Amendment right to spend at will on campaigns. Then find out where they stand on that same First Amendment when it defends behavior that does not necessarily work in their favor.

That will tell you something about a candidate you won’t find in his or her ads.

Resources:

• www.CampaignFinanceGuide.org
• www.Oyez.org podcast
• www.OpenSecrets.org