Publius v. the Political Class

The efforts by some members of the FEC to restrict political speech is by now well known among bloggers, though doubtless the general public (of the non-blog-reading variety) has heard little about it. Mike Krempasky has attended this week's hearings at the FEC, and he notes, among other things, that Trevor Potter denied alleging that Brad Smith provided misinformation to the public about the FEC's intentions. Of course, that claim is itself misleading. Skeptic's Eye takes on, and defeats, the asinine Star Tribune's editorial that ponders, with furrowed brow, just what would happen in Halliburton opened a blog. Read it all.

But the most incisive, original post I've come across on the matter lately is by Mark Tapscott. To illustrate the kind of debate that an FEC crackdown on blogging would prevent, Mark describes a successful conspiracy, in our very own country, to overthrow the government through anonymous pamphleteering, scheming, and subterfuge:

Just consider: These connivers sought nothing less than to subvert the federal government but they hid behind a non de plume that gave no absolutely hints about who they were or anything else about their characters, positions in society or professions. They disclosed nothing about their professional or personal relationships, nothing about who signed their paychecks, nothing about where they lived and nothing about any special interests they served.

Not only did they obscure the truth about themselves behind an impenetrable shield of anonymity, they contrived to be heard in every state of the nation by somehow persuading those who controlled America's main communication lines to spread their subversion, thus making them partners in the plot.

It's a rich post and should be read in full. Who were these masked men? Well, you can still purchase their writings, in many different editions, in fact, and some of you no doubt own them even as you read this.

What would have been the result if Jay, Hamilton, and Madison hadn't been able to publish their views? Leaving aside the argument over the quality of the Articles of Confederation, at base, we would have had no change. That is, had The Federalist Papers never materialized, or if their distribution had been prevented, the status quo ante would have been preserved.

And today, what if campaign finance "reformers" succeed in silencing critics of sitting politicians? Clearly, the results would be -- no change. Incumbents would remain such until natural death (retirement not being the first choice of many federal politicians); challengers, especially for seats in the House of Representatives, would face ensconced candidates running in Gerrymandered districts specially tailored to keep them in office. And the power of the federal government to regulate the lives of every American's political speech, or to influence the character of government via the franchise, would be reduced.

There's a word for those who oppose all change in government, beyond its growth, and it describes both those few who cling to the belief that the Constitution advocated by the authors of The Federalist Papers is inferior to what it replaced, and to the "reformers" who seek to eviscerate the First Amendment: reactionaries. The former are, like neo-Confederates, irrelevant at this stage of the game. The latter, however, are, like the poor, always with us, but possessed of significantly less dignity.