Monday, January 23, 2006
Now I'm glad They're Around
For all the exasperated rhetoric I spew onto this Blog about how simple some choices seem to be and how unimaginably off-base some politicians and judge's reactions are, there are times when the decisions are difficult. Sometimes it actually is good that we have smart people sitting on the bench for the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court just heard a case involving free speech, campaign finance and lobbying that I truely am not sure I could decide with much confidence.
The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law restricts the ways in which interest groups and unions etc. can spend their money on behalf of a candidate. It says that if they wish to create and air an add in support or opposition of a candidate in proximity to an election, the money cannot come out of a general fund, but must come from a political action committee fund which has significantly more restrictions attached to it.
A Wisconsin Right to Life Group designed and aired an add that painted Russ Feingold in a negative light during his campaign for re-election to the Senate. Although the add focused on Feingolds proclivity for obstructionism in the Senate and not abortion (which is the groups main focus), the Right to Life group claims the add was not meant to be campaigning, but merely to lobby senators to confirm Bush's judicial nominees. Becuase it is lobbying and not campaigning, they say, the add should not be subject to the provisions of the campaign finance laws.
But exactly who is right? I am not sure. Though I think it is likely the Right to Life group is streatching the facts to claim their add is solely issue based and 0% campaigning, should we as a country rule for or against a groups intentions? or are the effects more important? Shouldn't Wisconsin's Right to Life be entitled to their free speech? On the other hand, shouldn't they be required to comply with campaign finance rules when they make a TV add and air it at a time when it will clearly affect an upcoming election? Sometimes the decision seems clear. Sometimes I am comforted that some of the most brilliant legal minds sit on that bench to do the hard work for us. Other times I am concerned that the process for getting people to that bench is becoming so politicized, I soon won't actually trust those sitting in judgement to be impartial enough to effectively decide such difficult cases.
The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law restricts the ways in which interest groups and unions etc. can spend their money on behalf of a candidate. It says that if they wish to create and air an add in support or opposition of a candidate in proximity to an election, the money cannot come out of a general fund, but must come from a political action committee fund which has significantly more restrictions attached to it.
A Wisconsin Right to Life Group designed and aired an add that painted Russ Feingold in a negative light during his campaign for re-election to the Senate. Although the add focused on Feingolds proclivity for obstructionism in the Senate and not abortion (which is the groups main focus), the Right to Life group claims the add was not meant to be campaigning, but merely to lobby senators to confirm Bush's judicial nominees. Becuase it is lobbying and not campaigning, they say, the add should not be subject to the provisions of the campaign finance laws.
But exactly who is right? I am not sure. Though I think it is likely the Right to Life group is streatching the facts to claim their add is solely issue based and 0% campaigning, should we as a country rule for or against a groups intentions? or are the effects more important? Shouldn't Wisconsin's Right to Life be entitled to their free speech? On the other hand, shouldn't they be required to comply with campaign finance rules when they make a TV add and air it at a time when it will clearly affect an upcoming election? Sometimes the decision seems clear. Sometimes I am comforted that some of the most brilliant legal minds sit on that bench to do the hard work for us. Other times I am concerned that the process for getting people to that bench is becoming so politicized, I soon won't actually trust those sitting in judgement to be impartial enough to effectively decide such difficult cases.
