For seven years, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell has successfully staved off unconstitutional campaign-finance reform proposals in the name of free speech.
Yesterday, he surrendered.
The concession could not have been easy. In his uphill battle to protect free speech, the Kentuckian has become one of the most ostracized people in Washington, D.C. While most politicians ran for cover, McConnell unapologetically fought against McCain-Feingold, which he correctly identified as misguided and unconstitutional.
For McConnell and other free-speech advocates, the issue of campaign-finance reform is simple: Reforms that limit access to the political process are bad politics and bad policy. The legislation now headed to the White House promises to do just that. The bill, first proposed by Senators John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., is too full of loopholes to effectively siphon special interests’ influence.
Instead, McCain-Feingold will drastically limit the abilities of political organizations — especially political parties — to rally public support on issues ranging from abortion to guns to taxes.
The legislation flies in the face of past court decisions: not even the reform’s supporters contend that the law will survive judicial review. Specifically, political campaigning 60 days before the election by individuals and groups not associated with the campaign will be outlawed, an obvious constitutional faux pas. Even more, existing limits on contributions to candidates — meant to remove the potential for corruption — will be extended to political parties, which courts have previously recognized as independent from policymakers.
McConnell’s concession yesterday came barely a month after the U.S. House of Representatives approved a slightly altered version of McCain-Feingold. While McConnell’s allies in the House successfully avoided a vote last summer using clever parliamentary maneuvering, McCain-Feingold gained congressional approval after President Bush refused to speak out against the bill.
For McConnell and company, Bush’s lack of support was devastating.
During the bruising primary campaign, then-Governor George W. Bush had harsh words for Sen. John McCain’s campaign finance proposals. While the Texan remained elusive on the issue of McCain-Feingold, he spoke favorably of increasing disclosure of political contributions before increasing limits on political speech.
But as president, Bush has shown little interest in fighting unconstitutional campaign-finance reform proposals. Even more disconcerting, Bush has refused to spend any political capital defending or supporting politicians otherwise inclined to vote against McCain-Feingold on constitutional grounds.
Given Bush’s position, it’s understandable why McConnell would lose now. As president, Bush’s major legislative function is to veto laws he deems unconstitutional. With a sky-high approval rating, Bush could certainly afford to upset a few voters in the interest of upholding the Constitution. Rather, he remained deafeningly quiet on McCain-Feingold’s ever-growing support. Privately, his aides delivered a blunt message to Congressional Republicans: If you want to stop this, you’ll have to do it yourself.
As McConnell must have privately recognized yesterday, without any support from the White House, it is impossible to keep together the already politically weak coalition of McCain-Feingold opponents. With the president apparently comfortable shirking his constitutional responsibility and letting the courts shred McCain-Feingold, it would be difficult to convince legislators up for re-election this November to cast such an unpopular vote.
President Bush’s refusal to perform his duty is troubling. But even more troubling is his refusal to risk any political capital to defeat McCain-Feingold. Without a doubt, if Mr. 80-percent-approval-rating announced his opposition to the bill, he could have provided sufficient political coverage to defeat the legislation while still in Congress.
In theory, Bush could still muster some political courage and veto McCain-Feingold. But given his failure to share his political support with McConnell, free-speech advocates are right to be despondent.
“I’d be surprised if he didn’t sign it,” McConnell said yesterday. “Pleasantly surprised.”
Alexander Conant ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in economics.
