Decision ‘08

Yeah, What He Said…

I can’t excerpt this piece, because it must be read in its entirety, and I can’t add anything of value to it, so I’ll simply say: read the new George Will column. Pronto…

6 Responses to “Yeah, What He Said…”

1 Andy Says:
September 25th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Oh the irony!!! Talk about getting caught with the hand in the cookie jar. Hehehe
2 too many steves Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Ummm… duplicity and hypocrisy at THE TIMES is not news.
3 Mark Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Not news, but a nice comeuppance delivered, nonetheless…
4 too many steves Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 8:42 am
yes, yes.
5 km Says:
September 30th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I called that discount illegal, citing the FEC PAC guide, but went queasy when no one else seemed to agree. But now that Will’s on board, I feel MUCH better!
6 Peter Says:
October 1st, 2007 at 11:15 pm
I’m not going to rehash the moveon.org ad, which has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. Suffice it to say that I think George Will, as is his custom, is dead wrong. However, he mischaracterizes the Wisconsin decision (Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life), and that mischaracterization is the basis of his false argument.

Will obliquely acknowledges that McCain Feingold prohibits corporations and unions from running a broadcast ad 30 days before a primary or 60 days before an election which endorses or attacks a political candidate. There is an obvious practical reason for this: otherwise there would be a gaping hole in McCain Feingold and cause it to be toothless, as allowing wealthy corporations and unions to buy limitless amounts of broadcast time obviates any good which restricting individual contributions would create.

Perhaps you disagree with McCain Feingold, and perhaps you think that political advertising should always go to the highest bidders. In my view, there is a strong case to be made that the public interest is served by ensuring that a diversity of views is heard in the 30/60 days before an election, instead of only the voices with the most cash. However, all the Times did was endorse what was already law. Moreover, four years earlier, the Rehnquist court upheld these provisions. The Roberts court ignored stare decisis and in effect reversed the earlier decision.

Saying that the Times’s endorsement of McCain Feingold (and the Rehnquist decision) is “muzzling free speech” is a crock. Corporations and unions can buy every last piece of advertising time they want the rest of the year (or on cable or satellite during the 30/60 day period — the law only applies to broadcast, because radio and television use public airwaves). They can also run whatever advertising they want to in the 30/60 day period as long as they don’t support specfic and named political candidates. Will’s touching concern for the “free speech rights” of corporations to endorse political candidates immediately before an election is risible. Perhaps you believe that access to the public airwaves ought to be completely laissez faire: fine, nothing wrong with that. However, the opposite approach of advocating reasonable restrictions on the ability of wealthy interest groups to tilt an election for the brief period of time before an election is hardly disingenuous, and there is no contradiction between the Times’s position regarding the Wisconsin case and anything they are doing today.