One rumor that will not die is the potential presidential run of Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. Every few months a new story will come across the wire speculating that Feingold is positioning himself for a bid, and Feingold himself has said there is a chance, albeit one out of 100.

In the case of most politicians, you would take such an assessment to actually mean 99 out of 100. But I am tempted to take Feingold at his word. His identity as a maverick is well earned, as he has bucked his own party several times, most notably with his votes to allow witnesses in President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial and to confirm Attorney General John Ashcraft.

These votes, as well Feingold’s sole opposition to the PATRIOT anti-terrorism bill have earned him a reputation as a man of principle — certainly a desirable characteristic for a presidential candidate.

But a presidential candidate also needs visibility, and for that, Feingold has the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance “reform” bill. Today especially, the bill is in the news, as the House is scheduled to vote on their version of the bill.

Unfortunately for any future Feingold presidential run, he may have to explain why his ticket to public fame destroys his public persona. In other words, Feingold is a hypocrite.

* * *

In a speech on the Senate floor, Feingold explained his lone opposition to the PATRIOT anti-terrorism bill.

“There have been periods in our nation’s history when civil liberties have taken a back seat to what appeared at the time to be the legitimate exigencies of war. Our national consciousness still bears the stain and the scars of those events: The Alien and Sedition Acts, the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War …” and the list went on.

The reference to the Alien and Sedition Acts is particularly interesting. Passed in 1798, the “Sedition” portion forbade writing, publishing, or speaking anything of “a false, scandalous and malicious” nature against the government or any of its officers.

Now consider the version of McCain-Feingold that passed the Senate. The bill included a provision that would forbid corporations and unions from using issue ads to write, publish or speak anything of a false, scandalous and malicious nature, or even truthful and complimentary, within 60 days of an election. Feingold supported it.

The final version of the bill also included an amendment that changed the provision requiring TV stations to offer candidates the lowest rates. The provision made the lower rates guaranteed only if the name of the candidate’s opponent was not mentioned (unless by the candidate itself). A confusing provision to be sure, but the gist is that this amendment places the government in the role of deciding what speech is worthy of a “good” campaign ad and lower rates — a clear limitation on the candidate’s free speech.

But these two provisions pale in comparison to an amendment proposed by Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., and included in the final bill. This amendment extended the sedition-like limitations alluded to earlier to independent groups such as the NRA and the NAACP — groups made up of everyday citizens. This means within 60 days of an election, the Wisconsin chapter of the ACLU would be prohibited from saying “McCain/Feingold is unconstitutional.” If there were a vote on drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge within 60 days of an election, it would be illegal for the Sierra Club to run a commercial that encouraged you to call Rep. Baldwin. As far as referencing a candidate’s record to refute his or her claims? Not a chance.

Clearly this is an all-out assault on our most precious civil liberty, the right of free speech. And that is why Feingold voted against the amendment. Feingold said it was unconstitutional and a “bill killer.”

Yet the fact Feingold opposed this amendment makes his claims to principle all the more hypocritical. In the case of the PATRIOT anti-terrorism bill, Feingold said there were portions of the bill he supported, but the parts that infringed on civil liberties made it impossible for him to support it.

Such considerations did not affect his vote on McCain-Feingold. Feingold knew parts of the bill were unconstitutional — he said so himself — yet he voted for it anyway.

In a letter to the General Accounting Office, Feingold wrote regarding the PATRIOT act, “[I am] concerned about the potential threat to our civil liberties.”

If Feingold were truly principled, truly concerned about civil liberties and not just another politician with an axe to grind and a name to make, his concern would have forced a “nay” on his own bill.

Instead, he only proved himself to be a particularly good politician that nearly had me fooled.

Benjamin Thompson ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science.