Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform

This book changing my way of thinking 180 degrees. I was a huge John McCain and Campaign Finance Reform fan, but I read this book just to see what the other side had to say. I am sure glad I did! Smith points out many problems with alleged reform on mulitple levels. If you are interested in campaign finance reform, however you may feel about the subject, I suggest you read this book.

As the best known critic of campaign finance reform, Bradley Smith makes strong arguments not just against the legislation itself but against the philosophy underlying the entire movement. This is important, because many supporters of reform refuse to acknowledge that any case against their rationale exists. Many critiques of campaign finance legislation focus on proving that not nearly as much money is spent on campaigning as the public has been led to believe, or that the proposed legislation would give certain types of grassroots groups an unfair advantage over others. Smith's attack goes much further than that. He demonstrates why, in the long run, strict regulation of campaigns will harm everyone by crippling their ability to channel their talents into meaningful participation in the political process.The first half of the book serves as a comprehensive survey of arguments brought against reform. He begins by analyzing why the proposed legislation would give incumbents enormous advantages over challengers. From there, he discusses how the term corruption has been expanded to mean anything that a legislator does to respond to the wishes of constituents who helped contribute to her campaign-whether or not a causal link can be established between particular contributions and particular legislation. He concludes it with a section on how limits placed on monetary expenditures made to pay for speech are, in fact, limits placed on speech itself because the expenditure of money to pay for speech is inextricably linked to speech itself.In the second half, he deconstructs philosophical arguments used to justify reforms and turns them on their heads. He starts by pointing out that supporters of reform typically ignore the fact that most non-monetary means of influencing politicians are not distributed on an egalitarian basis. Thus, simply removing private contributions from our political system will not make everyone equal overnight. He develops this point by discussing the traditional notion of political equality-that "...Citizens are free to use their differing abilities, financial wherewithal, and personal disposition to become more or less active in political life, and to attempt to persuade their fellow citizens to vote in a particular manner." He points out that campaign finance reform is nothing more than an attempt to narrow the pool of individuals afforded this freedom.He concludes by hammering this point home: "...Because the First Amendment...makes no distinction between the different types of political influence, it allows a maximum number of voters to participate and helps to prevent any one faction or interest from gaining the upper hand in political debate." This Madisonian indictment of the campaign finance movement goes above and beyond merely attacking various legislative proposals as incumbent protection schemes. It cuts through all the political rhetoric and reveals what campaign finance reform really is: an attempt by a coalition

I sense that Bradley Smith underestimates the problem of mammoth campaign contributions by wealthy individuals and organizations. Many citizens like myself are uneasy when money seems to play an unjustifiable role in the political arena. Nonetheless, the author presents us with a compelling argument that current campaign reform initiatives such as the McCain-Feingold bill will likely cause more harm than good. "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech," is interpreted by many people in a very absolutist manner; the word "no" is suppose to mean exactly that, and it is not a negotiable starting point. Smith cherishes this principle but goes one step further and clearly points out the practical consequences likely if this constitutional dogma is ignored. The devil is in the details, and we are forced to ask who is going to decide what constitutes legitimate funding of present day political matters? Do Americans truly wish to leave this task to even the most honest and benevolent members of the U.S. Congress? Smith believes that inevitably, human nature being what it is, the Congressional incumbents will enact rules favoring their own reelections. Can anybody logical dispute this overwhelming probability? The Founding Fathers rightfully embraced a pessimistic notion of human nature. After all, the at least metaphorical reality of Original Sin is still alive and well on planet earth. The concept of unintended consequences is very relevant. Almost certainly, any new law passed by Congress will be subjected to meticulous examination by those desiring to minimally obey the letter of the law while violating its spirit. Rules must not be "broken," but they are to be be stretched and manhandled to the utmost. Any misplaced comma, an "i" not dotted, or a "t" not crossed, will be an excuse to make fools of the original intentions of the bill's formulators. Do we really want more complexity in our political affairs? Also, a cynic should be concerned with any legislation providing new opportunities for attorneys to earn money. I will, though, add a strong suggestion overlooked by the author: the mandatory need to guilt trip our fellow American voters! Rarely, if ever, does anyone mention that this debate would not even be occurring if most adults increased their political awareness by investing a few more minutes a day in keeping up with the issues. Please note, that I said minutes, and not hours. Citizens are not victims, and should not be treated as such. Bradley Smith has performed a valuable service. He has converted me over to his way of thinking. You might also raise the white flag of surrender. I adamantly urge the reader to obtain a copy of --Unfree Speech.--

There are lots of sensationalistic books out there about politics and money, most with sensationalistic titles: "The Money Chase," "The Money Men," "The Buying of the President," "The Best Congress Money Can Buy," "The Corruption of American Politics," etc. ad nauseum. Smith's book is different. Smith argues that the problem of money in politics is vastly overblown, and presents both empirical data and theory to show why. He explains how money in politics actually helps political outsiders and traditionally disadvantaged groups and candidates. He argues convincingly that money makes politics *more* equal, not less. If any of these notions seem strange, consider (as Smith shows) that those who write from the opposing point of view are largely the ones who have created our current campaign finance system. The writing is at times eloquent, yet straight forward and to the point. For example, would government funding solve the problem? Smith points out that "We have 100 percent government financing of the presidential general election campaigns now." Yet no one thinks that has solved the problems of presidential elections. Should campaign spending by interest groups be limited? The McCain-Feingold bill tries to do so on the grounds that candidates should "control" their campaigns. But Smith asks, "Are efforts to persuade fellow citizens how to vote 'corrupting,' or are they the essence of democracy?" Do you join those who ridicule the position of the United States Supreme Court, that limits on campaign spending restrict free speech? Well, says Smith, "Suppose that government limited the amount that a newspaper could spend to publish its paper, or that a broadcast station could spend to be on the air?" He adds, "If spending money were not a form of speech, the First Amendment would become hollow, since any effort to spread one's message could be stripped of First Amendment protections simply by limiting the expenditure of money." Smith shows how regulation restricts, rather than supports, the ability of average Americans to make their voices count. Big players employ consultants and lawyers to work around the law, but average Americans get run over by it. "[Regulation] has served only to distance Americans from politics and politicians," he concludes.Again and again, Smith takes common assumptions about campaign finance, and turns them around. The end result is a book about money and politics that is interesting and different. After reading this book, the honest reader will find it difficult to think about campaign finance reform in the same old way.

Mr. Smith's book is a breath of fresh air in the altogether stagnant debate about the "evil" of money in politics. Smith gives a concise and enlightening history of attempts to control money and speech in American politics and devotes a substantial portion of the book to looking at various "remedies" to the "problem of money." He offers a unique and well-researched look at the many wrong assumptions and fallacious ideas surrounding the current debate on campaign finance. However, as well-written and easy to read as the entire book is, NO ONE should miss reading the last chapter. It is thoughtful, passionate, mind-expanding, and should compell everyone who reads it to stand up for freedom of speech, lest we lose it forever.