When free speech is a "loophole"

David Broder:

If you believe most of the newspaper editorials and the outraged complaints from self-styled reform groups last week, the Supreme Court opened a huge "loophole" in campaign finance law that will enable corporations and unions to pollute the political process with their ads.

It is astonishing to me that a decision grounded in the First Amendment right to address basic public policy questions should be objectionable to people who consider themselves liberal.

...

The decision was greeted with derision. The New York Times said "it opened a big new loophole in time to do mischief in the 2008 elections." The Post said that while the ad seems "inoffensive" on its face, the ruling "reopens a dangerous loophole." The Reform Institute said it "paves the way for the return of sham 'issue ads' just as the 2008 campaign is heating up."

Have we completely lost our bearings? This is no "loophole," folks. This is pretty basic. I agree completely with Matt Notowidigdo, who wrote to the Times, as "someone who is passionately pro-choice," that he cheered the ruling for the anti-abortion group.

"While that organization might technically fit under the definition of a 'corporation' for the purposes of campaign finance law," he wrote, "I have trouble understanding how that organization's involvement in the late stages of a campaign represents an excessive influence of 'special interests' . . . .

"The organization clearly represents the views of a very large number of citizens. The many citizens who contribute time and money to Wisconsin Right to Life care deeply about issues related to abortion, and I think that it is a clear victory for political speech that they can now collectively express themselves when their message has the greatest impact."

The reality that reformers find hard to accept is that in this country, efforts to regulate tightly the flow of money from the private sector to the political world will almost always run afoul of the courts. The effect of much over-regulation is not to shut down the spigots but to drive donors farther and farther underground.

...

The proper way to regulate campaign finance is to require full and immediate disclosure of who is contributing and how much. No other limits are needed. If George Soros is trying to buy and election for someone, the public can get a clear picture of that rather than let him hide behind 527 organizations and contributing odious organizations like MoveOn.org.

Don Surber points out that Broder goes on to try to take away free speech with a proposed amendment. I think Broder's proposed amendment is clearly a croc as in the funny looking shoes.