Democrats Set New Restriction on Political Speech

The Democrats have created a new bar to civic minded private citizens holding public appointive positions. In this, they have set their supporters up for quid pro quos, lowered the ability of government to attract talented private individuals, and reduced the willingness of private individuals to engage in the open political debate upon which voters depend to make choices.

Kerry and fellow Democrats held – in the blockage of Sam Fox’ nomination as ambassador to Belgium -- that whom one legally supports, of itself, is sufficient ground to block a nomination, regardless of other qualifications. They have, thus, introduced a new restriction to private citizens, usually at sacrifice, holding public office, and introduced a new restriction onto free political speech as private citizens with civic ambitions restrain their free speech.

Bob Bauer calls it a “Fox Hunt.” Since Bauer (bio) is currently counsel to the Democratic Senatorial and Congressional Campaign Committees, among other leading roles in the field of political law, his comments on the consequences of their treatment of Sam Fox’ nomination for ambassador to Belgium may be of interest to his clients:

Without a vote or debate, the failure of the Fox nomination might be deprived of significance, being just a political moment in time with no status as “precedent.” It could be read entirely the other way, too. The Administration could be said to have accepted the proposition that a nominee must answer to the opposition party for objectionable, rather than illegal, political speech. The Democrats, including Senator Kerry, did not emphasize legal questions about Swift Boat—about unregistered “political committee” activity or illegal coordination. Fox was challenged on the type of advertising he supported with his money….

This is a development of consequence. Political comment is seen as rancorous and uncompromising, indifferent to fact in a ruthless quest for impact. There is wide agreement that this is so, but only minimal meeting of the minds about which speech is reprehensibly beyond the pale. It is also understood that none of this controversial speech will travel far without money, and so, whether the complaint lies on the left or the right—whether the culprit is a well-known figure such as George Soros or the more obscure Fox—the fight is now carried to the donor.

When the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo held that Congress could limit contributions to candidates, it resolved the First Amendment question by finding that the contributor was not the primary speaker, suffering a direct infringement of her own speech. Hers was “speech by proxy,” a lower form of speech. Contributors who remain within the regulated system approved by Buckley may still safely speak by delegation, through the candidate or the party or other registered organization.

But those who provide funding outside those limits, outside that system, to groups engaged in “attack” advertising are not just “speaking by proxy.” It appears that they will be held accountable, directly and personally, and others like Fox, with money and a cause but also with ambition, will surely pay attention.

In other words, only those whose free speech is exercised as politicians decree -- especially for their own self-protection, regardless of constitutional rights, are to be permitted free speech!