Limits on speech?

• Author: Rothschild, Matthew
• Position: Free speech and campaign-finance reform - Brief Article - Editorial

There is no issue I've spent more time thinking about this year than campaign-finance reform and free speech. I've read every article I could get hold of on the subject. I've tried to puzzle through the maze of existing laws and the competing claims of reformers. And I've tried to hash it out with my colleagues, though we still may not be in agreement.

It's such a hard call that we thought we'd let you watch two venerable institutions fight it out--the ACLU vs. Public Citizen. Now you make the call.

For me, it's been particularly difficult because here at The Progressive we take the First Amendment very seriously. In 1979, we fought the U.S. government for the right to publish "The H-Bomb Secret." Our defense was the First Amendment. We've always maintained that the government has no right to tell Americans what they can or cannot say. We've defended the Nazis in Skokie; we've defended hate speech: we've defended banned books; we've defended Mapplethorpe. As Erwin Knoll, my predecessor, was fond of saying, "We are absolutists on the First Amendment."

But what does that mean in this case? That any limits on campaign advertising are infringements on the Constitution? George Will and many other Republicans are now claiming this high ground, advocating that all limits on campaign spending should be lifted.

This "sky's-the-limit" approach has no attraction for me. It would simply compound the corrupting power of money in politics, leaving the wealthy and corporations with more clout than ever.

But on what constitutional basis do we build our case for limiting campaign spending? Many on the left say the answer is that money is not speech. I find this facile. Just because it takes money to purchase an ad, does that mean the government has a right to censor that ad?

I worry that in our eagerness to get money out of politics, we'll give the government inordinate power. Some campaign-finance-reform proposals would bring the government into the business of telling people what they can or cannot say. Take McCain-Feingold. It would prohibit all groups except PACs from taking out ads that mention candidates by name within sixty days of an election.

If Paul Wellstone runs for President, and your favorite nonprofit group that promotes universal health care wants to take out an ad praising Wellstone for his position on this issue, how would you feel if the government said no?

So where does this leave me? Wary about using terms like "absolutist." If the word...