Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Feb. 7, 2000 / 1 Adar I, 5760

George Will

George Will
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
David Corn
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Arianna Huffington
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Debbie Schlussel
Sam Schulman
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports
Weekly Standard



Free to Speak, Free to Give -- THE DAY GEORGE W. BUSH won Iowa's caucuses, the Supreme Court decided a case concerning campaign finance. One of Bush's father's worst and one of his best legacies were on display at the court that day.

In an opinion written by Justice David Souter, who was nominated by President Bush, the court affirmed its 24-year-old ruling that permits government to regulate the right of Americans to engage in political speech. In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, another nominee of President Bush, argued correctly that the ruling is a perverse anomaly in First Amendment jurisprudence.

At issue was a Missouri law restricting, as federal law does for federal candidates, the size of campaign contributions to state candidates (up to $1,075 for statewide races). A lower court had ruled the restrictions, which the state justified as a means of reducing corruption, an unconstitutional abridgment of free political expression, absent evidence of corruption.

The case challenged the Supreme Court to revisit its 1976 holding that, although limits on candidates' expenditures are unconstitutional abridgments of free speech, limits on contributions are not. The court recently ruled 6 to 3 that Missouri's contribution limits are constitutional. Souter, writing for the court, said that if the public's "perception of impropriety" is "unanswered," cynicism will result.

Evidently the First Amendment means, to Souter and five colleagues, that government shall make no law abridging freedom of speech--unless government decides abridgment will limit cynicism. In a concurrence, Justice John Paul Stevens asserted that political contributions merely hire "speech by proxy," by "mercenaries" and "gladiators."

Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, replied that "the proposition that speech by proxy is not fully protected" ignores the fact that "a contribution, by amplifying the voice of the candidate, helps to ensure the dissemination of the messages that the contributor wishes to convey." The court has held in prior rulings that the First Amendment protects students wearing armbands as protests, nude dancing, burning the flag, wearing a jacket inscribed " . . . the draft," and pornographic telephone services and Internet activities. Nevertheless, the court says government can limit political speech, expressed through voluntary campaign contributions. This, even though the court in 1981 held that "placing limits on contributions which in turn limit expenditures plainly impairs freedom of expression."

When the court in 1988 struck down a state ban on payments to professionals who circulate petitions, it said the First Amendment protects people's right to give money to others to help get their message out, because government cannot make a law that "limits the size of the audience they can reach." The author of that opinion? Stevens.

In the Missouri case the court allowed contribution limits as a means of combating the perception of corruption. But the court, and campaign finance enthusiasts such as John McCain, claim to perceive, and urge the public to perceive, corruption in normal relations between politicians and citizens.

Furthermore, limits on contributions to candidates merely serve to relegate contributors to less-effective modes of communication, such as issue ads by independent groups. But "reformers" such as McCain want to break even those groups to the saddle of government regulation. Such government restriction of other people's voices is encouraged by many journalists because it will magnify the journalists' collective voice.

When it was revealed recently that the White House drug office had worked with television networks to implant anti-drug messages in entertainment programs, the New York Times said this should disturb anyone who understands the need for all media "to remain free from government meddling." But the Times applauded the court's decision in the Missouri case, which allows government to determine the proper amount and efficacy of political advocacy in the media.

The court, said the Times approvingly, has reaffirmed government's right to decide who is having "undue influence" through the political advocacy, primarily in broadcast media. To the Times, the First Amendment protects freedom of the press absolutely, freedom of other people's speech much less so.

This presidential election may decide whether the Supreme Court acquires a composition that protects political speech from those who believe government can dictate the "due" influence of speakers. So whether America remains a politically open society may depend on whether the next president nominates justices who, concerning the First Amendment, think as Thomas and Scalia do.

Those two justices are cited as exemplars by George W. Bush, who the day before the court ruled in the Missouri case, endorsed this Thomas assertion (from a 1996 case): "There is no constitutionally significant difference between campaign contributions and expenditures: both forms of speech are central to the First Amendment." If the court ever follows the logic of its own First Amendment case law, it will agree.

Comment on JWR contributor George Will's column by clicking here.


02/02/00: Conservatives in a Changing Market
01/31/00: America's true unity day
01/27/00: For the Voter Who Can't Be Bothered
01/25/00: The FBI and the golden age of child pornography
01/20/00: Scruples and Science
01/18/00: Bradley: Better for What Ails Us
01/13/00: O'Brian Rules the Waves
01/10/00: Patron of the boom
01/06/00: In Cactus Jack's Footsteps
01/03/00: The long year
12/31/99: A Stark Perspective On a Radical Century
12/20/99: Soldiers' Snapshots of the Hell They Created
12/16/99: Star-Crossed Banner
12/13/99: Hubert Humphrey Wannabe
12/09/99: Stupidity in Seattle
12/06/99: Bradley's most important vote
12/03/99: Boys will be boys --- or you can always drug 'em
12/01/99: Confidence in the Gore Camp
11/29/99: Busing's End
11/22/99: When We Enjoyed Politics
11/18/99: Ever the Global Gloomster
11/15/99: The Politics of Sanctimony
11/10/99: Risks of Restraining
11/08/99: Willie Brown Besieged
11/04/99: One-House Town
11/01/99: Crack and Cant
10/28/99: Tax Break for the Yachting Class
10/25/99: Ready for The Big Leagues?
10/21/99: Where honor and responsibility still exist
10/18/99: Is Free Speech Only for the Media?
10/14/99: A Beguiling Amateur
10/11/99: Money in Politics: Where's the Problem?
10/08/99: Soft Thinking On Soft Money

© 2000, Washington Post Writer's Group