The Political Class Security Act

For some time we've argued that the real intent of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as McCain-Feingold, is to squelch political speech critical of incumbent politicians. Whether clipping free speech rights on the web by targeting blogs, as a court ordered the FEC to do, or preventing anyone from buying television time to criticize politicians in the days leading up to an election, the goal of the "reformers" and their deep-pocket foundation supporters is crystal clear: shut down groups or individuals who take issue with the way we lead before, through the exercise of their First Amendment rights, they kick us out of office. The real issue here isn't corruption or clean elections; the real issue is preserving the perks of the political class.

An excellent editorial on this runs in this morning's New York Sun. Although it doesn't mention BCRA's threat to the Net, it does hit its mark regarding the "reformers" efforts to ensure not only that politicians aren't criticized, but that they get special rates from broadcast outlets for their own self-serving ads. Here's the core of their argument:

The latest move afoot in Congress is to limit sharply contributions to groups such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which are known as 527 organizations. In the Roll Call article, Senator Lott may have been unintentionally candid when, as the paper reports, he said, "his first priority was taking care of this '527 business before we're all embarrassed.'"

Well, the First Amendment protects the freedom of political speech, not the right of politicians to be free of embarrassment.

It also, one would think, protects owners of television stations from laws requiring them to give special discounts to politicians, as does the amendment passed yesterday by the Senate Rules Committee, that, as Roll Call describes it, would require television stations to charge candidates the lowest commercial rate they offer other, nonpolitical organizations throughout the year. Roll Call reports that a similar amendment passed the Senate in 2002 but was taken out by the House of Representatives, as the amendment's sponsor, Senator Durbin, put it, "because they don't buy as much TV time as we do." What's next, an amendment guaranteeing senators the lowest prices available all year on airline tickets? On automobiles?

The Sun's editors are being facetious in those final lines, but would anyone be shocked if such a proposal was put forward? Using Sen. Durbin's logic, why not? Here's one rendition of an argument we just may hear:

"Sen. X: We have to fly every weekend back to our home states (or districts, if Rep. X is speaking), and then travel extensively in those districts once we're home. The expenses of this travel are enormous, and what that means to the folks back home is that I have to be out raising all that extra money from supporters when I could be doing the people's work. Not only that, but money is the cause of all the corruption we see in politics these days, and anything we can do to remove the need to inject even more cash into the election cycle will, I believe, help our nation and receive the people's support."

But why stop there? Why not apply these wage and price controls to every facet of politicians' lives? Housing costs in Washington got you down? Try rent control for Congressmen. And hey, why not their staffs, as well? Can't expect a young staffer to raise a family in high-priced DC on the money we give him, can we? While we're at it, how's about a housing allowance for the home district or state, so that we won't have to give up our property, which we only want to pass along to our children, just to serve the people. It's only fair.

The BCRA should be re-named the "political class security act." Better yet, it should be abolished, and similar legislation defeated, quickly.