Mccain-fiengold has problems, even for people who want transparency in government finance

Page history last edited by myclob 2 yrs ago

Mccain-fiengold has problems, even for people who want transparency in government finance.

Reasons to agree

  1. Mr. Romney attacks McCain-Feingold because it imposes a "free-speech blackout period," banning groups from mentioning a federal candidate's name just before an election. There is no doubt that this amounts, as Mr. Romney says, to "unprecedented restrictions on the political activities of everyday Americans."
  2. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) argues that even grass-roots lobbying should be banned during the blackout periods. It comes as a surprise that incumbent politicians have the constitutional power to prohibit people from criticizing them, but this is what McCain-Feingold does.
  3. McCain-Feingold forces spending into "secret corners," The Post acknowledged this but suggested the system is "less corrupt" than it was before the law. Does anyone really believe our system is better off because "527" groups such as America Coming Together and Progress for America spent more than $600 million in 2004?

The editorial "Campaign Finance Flip" asserted that the McCain-Feingold law has not "squelched speech by some nonprofit groups close to Election Day" because "such groups are affected only if they accept corporate or union money; they remain free to run ads as long as they don't mention a candidate for federal office by name."

  1. Government regulations do not allow nonprofit groups to cleanse their accounts of previous minor corporate or labor donations -- which makes censorship permanent. These same regulations also bar such speech by incorporated nonprofits unless they were organized under one obscure paragraph in the tax code and avoid offering member discounts or even selling calendars or T-shirts.
  2. How can speech be free when the government censors most citizen groups from mentioning the name of a member of Congress in a TV ad when a bill is coming up for a vote during a prohibited time? How would Post editors feel if Congress passed a law banning the paper from writing such editorials during the same time frame? DAVID KEATING, Executive Director, Club for Growth, Washington

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.