Editorial: Protect free speech

Wednesday, a special appeals court heard arguments on whether the new campaign finance laws regulating political donations and issue ads violate the basic protections of free speech found in the First Amendment. This case will most likely go before the U.S. Supreme Court, the ruling of which will be a new landmark about the nature and scope of free speech. Consequently, it's imperative that courts strike down the McCain-Feingold Act to protect the very essence of the First Amendment--political speech--that the act so flagrantly and insidiously assaults.

The most deplorable part of the legislation is that it limits the ability of some groups to run political advertisements in the 60 days prior to a general election and 30 days prior to a primary. In other words, if the AFL-CIO wanted to run an ad condemning a candidate for his or her views, the McCain Feingold Act would stop them from doing so. This attacks the essence of free speech: If a group wants to give its opinion on a candidate, it should be allowed to do so and the government should not be able to stop them.

At times, debates about political issues may turn nasty, but that is a symptom of the importance of the issue. Passion and dedication to debating the issues in a campaign is something that should be encouraged, not prevented by heavy-handed legislation that will only lower the amount and level of political discussion.

The provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act placing limits on soft-money contributions to candidates are far less onerous than the restrictions on issue ads. As the Supreme Court has ruled in previous campaign finance decisions, restricting the flow of money is not the equivalent of restricting speech. Although there is certainly some connection between money and speech, the government does have some compelling interest in regulating contributions in order to ensure some semblance of equity in speech between individuals.

Limiting soft-money contributions promises to lessen the degree of corporate influence in Washington by preventing businesses from buying off candidates and their votes with campaign contributions. Stopping this sort of corrupting influence of money fully justifies the minor limitations on free speech that restricting donations necessarily implies.

However, there is one significant problem with limiting soft-money donations to political parties: The limitation probably will not significantly alter the amount of money donated, but rather will alter where the money is given. That is, instead of giving money to candidates, individuals may simply choose to give their money to advocacy organizations. But even though advocacy organizations may buy ads supporting candidates, the connection between that sort of support and money for votes quid pro quo that campaign contributions lead to is quite different.

But above all, the best way to ensure honest and fair elections is to have transparency in the system. Who gives how much money and to whom should all be recorded and be made public knowledge. That way, voters have access to information about how candidates are being funded and can make informed decisions.