By Theresa Camoriano
On June 27, 2011 the Louisville 912 group had a meeting on campaign finance laws and the effect they have had on people’s ability to speak out on issues and to support political candidates. In effect, these laws require the people to ask the government’s permission before exercising their Constitutional right to freedom of speech. These laws are so complex that anyone who wants to participate in a political campaign needs to hire an attorney to try to navigate them. However, even those who think they are in compliance with the law and who take every step that is required still may find themselves being accused of violating the law. (If you don’t believe that, just ask Tom DeLay, who has been convicted and is now facing prison, and John Edwards, who may be at risk of imprisonment for accepting funds that were used to try to keep his affair quiet.)
Richard Lewis described his own experience of being unjustly accused of violating the law and having to spend four years defending himself. Richard ran as a third party candidate for Congress and knew that the two major parties wanted to punish him for challenging them. He was very careful to meet all the requirements of registering under the campaign finance laws, reporting all his contributions, and reporting all his expenditures. What he did not anticipate and could not have prevented was the accusation of “coordination”.
The Federal Elections Commission said that actions that had been taken by other people (over whom Richard had no control) were an illegal contribution to his campaign for which he would be held responsible. The potential penalties included not only fines but also imprisonment. Richard described the Federal Elections Commission trying to trick him, intimidate him, and bully him into submission.
They wanted him to confess to having violated the law and to pay a fine in order to avoid the expense of having to defend himself and the risk of going to prison. However, Richard knew that he had done nothing wrong, believed that his honor was at stake, and refused to comply. He spent many hours conducting legal research in order to defend himself and succeeded in having the government drop the charges against him.
What a contrast this is from the tradition of our founders, who wrote the 1st Amendment to the Constitution that was intended to protect our right to free speech.
When our country was founded, it was commonplace for people to publish anonymous pamphlets in order to promote ideas. Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense”, which has been credited with being an inspiration for the revolution, was originally published anonymously. The Federalist Papers, which made the case for the Constitution, were published anonymously. The founders would have been appalled to think that Americans today have to go to the government to request permission to speak out about the issues of the day or to support particular candidates or causes and that they have to disclose the names and occupations of all their donors, leaving them vulnerable to personal attacks from people who disagree with them.
As Greg Holmes, an attorney, pointed out in his presentation, the possibility of being personally attacked by opponents is not just theoretical. As a recent example, people on both sides of Proposition 8 in California, whose names were on the list of donors, found themselves being attacked.
Wendy Caswell, founder of the Louisville Tea Party, also described her experiences with all the hoops she has had to jump through in order to try to comply with the law. Her group originally organized as one type of corporation and then had to re-organize as a different type of entity, which involved substantial costs to the group. They continue to have to make regular reports to the government of their donors and expenses.
And this is happening in America, where we are supposed to have the right to freedom of speech? How does this differ from a totalitarian state?
The effect of these campaign finance laws has been to severely restrict the ability of ordinary citizens to participate in the political process, which has resulted in a sharp divide between the “political insiders and elites” and everyone else. These laws, which restrict our freedom to compete, have resulted in a great shift of power from the people to the insider elites of both major parties, as well as to the media, who are exempted from the laws. As the TEA party folks are learning, these laws make it extremely difficult for an outsider to challenge the existing powers.
Ronald Reagan was able to challenge the establishment thanks to a handful of large donors. Without them, he would not have been able to be a viable candidate. The same is true of George McGovern. Under the current system, it is extremely difficult for any outsider who is not independently wealthy or who does not have the benefit of daddy’s Rolodex and connections to compete.
Here in Kentucky, Rand Paul was able to get enough money run a competitive political campaign thanks to the financing structure and connections that had been developed by his father in his previous campaign for President and thanks to the Internet, which now makes it easier for small donors to become more involved. However, when Phil Moffett ran for the Republican nomination for governor of Kentucky as an outsider, he was not able to get enough money through small donors to get his message out effectively. Many people who wanted to support Moffett were afraid of having their names appear on Moffett’s donor list, because they were afraid they might be punished by his opponent, David Williams, who would continue to be a powerful insider regardless of the outcome of the election. Given Moffett’s amazing success without sufficient funding, there can be little doubt that he would have won the nomination and very well might be our next governor if the campaign finance laws had not prevented him from obtaining sufficient funds from a few wealthy people in order to be able to get his message out.
We have seen very clearly from many years of experience that the campaign finance laws do not prevent big money from affecting elections. However, they do severely restrict and limit the competition of ideas and candidates, which are essential for a healthy society.
Why should newspapers and television stations have greater rights to pool their money and speak out on issues and candidates than do the regular citizens?
Why should American citizens who choose to participate in the political process be at risk of going to jail based on the actions of people over whom they have no control?
Why should grassroots organizations have to spend extensive time and money and report their donors in order to be able to participate in the political process?
Why are our elected officials afraid of free and open competition?
The question was asked at the meeting, What can the people do to get their rights back?
It was suggested that people call or write their elected officials and candidates, asking them to sign the following pledge:
“I pledge to support a law ensuring that the citizens have at least as great a right to free speech as any newspaper or television station.”
Any candidate or elected official who refuses to sign such a pledge does not deserve the support of the American people.