Free Speech Is in Peril under the Guise (As Usual) of “Reform”

A few weeks ago, I criticized Congresswoman Jean Schmidt and the other three area Congressmen (Chabot, Boehner, and Davis) for supporting a similar bill, and candidate Bob McEwen for not campaigning against it.

What was in the bill I objected to has apparently made further progress under the guise of “Ethics Reform” (HTs OH02, a Club for Growth [CFG] e-mail, and another e-mailer).

OH02 objects to the softness on lobbying, and there is some validity to that. But the infinitely bigger issue is the suppression of free speech, which CFG is on top of (links were in original e-mail):

Reject the Assault On Free Speech!

This week, the Club for Growth joined with 64 other organizations to tell Congress to oppose a new attempt to restrict political free speech. Click here to read the coalition letter (PDF). Also click here (probably requires registration) to read the Washington Post’s recap of a relevant vote that occurred on Wednesday evening, and here to read an article from The Hill. Finally, here’s how The Wall Street Journal explained it (requires subscription):

One of the more egregious proposals would limit campaign giving by reducing individual donations to so-called 527 political advocacy groups. This assault on political speech has nothing to do with ethics and would only make it harder for voters to assemble to influence their representatives. This kind of “campaign-finance reform” is always sold as high-mindedness but is really designed to insulate Members from political accountability.

The Post ignorantly spins the free-speech restrictions as disproportionately helping conservatives despite the 64-signature petition objecting to those restrictions submitted by conservative groups:

Some conservative groups protested the legislation because of its restraint on campaign giving — a provision that would on balance benefit Republicans. “The outcry from the conservative community against this move to suppress free speech is loud and unified,” said Pat Toomey, president of the conservative Club for Growth.

This totally ignores the fact that the large majority of the spending by 527 groups continues to be done by organized labor and Soros- or MoveOn-affiliated liberal organizations (the fact that it has been almost totally ineffective is irrelevant to the current post). Everyone who cares about legally affecting the legislative and electoral process through the exercise of their First Amendment rights loses with this bill (HR 4975, which the roll call shows that locals Schmidt, Chabot, Boehner, and Davis all again supported; all but eight of the entire Democrat delegation opposed it). If the labor and liberal organizations aren’t as on top of the peril to their right to free expression as they should be, shame on them.

What also needs to be remembered is that Democrats mostly oppose this bill, not because it’s not tough enough on ethics and lobbying. Nope — They’re still steamed over what the Swiftvets’ relatively tiny 527 achieved in exposing the truth about John Kerry’s military service, and they want the bill to place MORE restrictions on free speech.

The House measure has to be reconciled with a similar bill that passed the Senate in March. Here’s hoping the differences are irreconcilable.