Eugene Volokh has more on Scott McClellan’s call for an end to “all of this unregulated soft money activity.” Says Eugene:
You can call it “soft money,” but it’s speech, of the sort that political movements such as the antislavery movement, the temperance movement, the civil rights movement, and many other movements (good and bad) have engaged in. Without such speech, who gets to speak effectively, in the large traditional media? The media itself; the parties; and the politicians who have the infrastructure to raise hard money in $2000 chunks; and a few super-rich people (unless they’re shut up, too). People who care deeply about a subject, enough to pool even tens of thousands of their dollars with others who care equally strongly, would be shut out.
UPDATE: Aaron Schwartz emails a link to Bush himself on Larry King Live. McClellan wasn’t off the reservation; Bush is saying (a) I want to get rid of unregulated, independent soft-money political speech, and (b) I didn’t understand the law I signed.
G. BUSH: Well, I say they ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves.
There have been millions of dollars spent up until this point in time. I signed a law that I thought would get rid of those, and I called on the senator to — let’s just get anybody who feels like they got to run to not do so.
KING: Do you condemn the statements made about his…
G. BUSH: Well, I haven’t seen the ad, but what I do condemn is these unregulated, soft-money expenditures by very wealthy people, and they’ve said some bad things about me. I guess they’re saying bad things about him. And what I think we ought to do is not have them on the air. I think there ought to be full disclosure. The campaign funding law I signed I thought was going to get rid of that. But evidently the Federal Election Commission had a different view.
UPDATE: Julia has more.
{ 6 comments }
norbizness 08.20.04 at 7:17 pm
Didn’t all this start with the President signing McCain-Feingold, a bill he had declared to be unconstitutional?
Now that’s some punctuated equilibrium-style political evolution.
dmm 08.20.04 at 7:38 pm
I agree, Norbizness. It’s a very nuanced position.
fling93 08.20.04 at 9:00 pm
You would think Volokh’s point would argue for a lower hard money cap, to make sure that the speech is really from little people pooling their money, and not those rich and powerful interests.
Robin Green 08.21.04 at 1:39 pm
You would think Volokh’s point would argue for a lower hard money cap, to make sure that the speech is really from little people pooling their money, and not those rich and powerful interests.
The idea that you can stop “rich and powerful” interests from speaking under capitalism is, of course, quite fanciful. It would be absurd to make such an argument because the conclusion would be absurd.
pseudosophist 08.21.04 at 6:04 pm
Bush says, “what I do condemn is these unregulated, soft-money expenditures by very wealthy people.” Although I believe groups like MoveOn may have received considerable financial assistance from George Soros, most of the fundraising they engage in takes place on-line. People like me, not wealthy by a long shot, make contributions of $25, or $50, and collectively we are able to have our voices heard. Exactly who are these “very wealthy people” who have “said some bad things about” Bush?
Jake McGuire 08.21.04 at 8:02 pm
While I agree that it’s sort of amusing to see the “I didn’t understand the law that I signed”, this is hardly a unique to George Bush. There were a huge number of articles several months ago featuring Democratic congressmen saying “what the hell did we vote for?” McCain-Feingold was, is, and will probably continue to be, a bad idea. The more people realize this, the better, IMO.
Comments on this entry are closed.