The price of free speech

Sen. Mitch McConnell has long been a staunch opponent of campaign finance reform, basing his argument on the principle that giving money is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment. Now, by his own hand, the Kentucky Republican reveals that the only speech he wants free is that which he wants to hear.

This curious tale started more than a year ago, when Congress was engaged in the disappointing first round of the campaign finance fight. A group of executives with some of the country’s largest corporations — General Motors, Xerox and the like — joined the reform team, saying the mounting demands by both parties for unregulated soft-money contributions, escalating from five figures to six, was bad for business, bad for their image and bad for the political process. The word “extortion” was not specifically used, but it certainly was implied.

That view is gaining support. In March, the Committee for Economic Development, a highly regarded, fiercely non-partisan business-led public policy organization, released a report endorsing reform measures that ban soft money but that increase the regulated-money limit from $1,000 to $3,000. Based upon two years of study, CED found that more and more executives are tired of being hit up and shaken down by the parties and utterly appalled at the increasing public perception that legislation is for sale to the highest bidder. In late July, the committee took out a full-page ad in The Hill, a magazine that speaks directly to Congress, urging the overhaul of campaign-finance laws.

That’s when Sen. McConnell took word processor in hand and fired off an angry letter to 10 executives who belong to CED, asking them how they could ally themselves with such anti-business types as Ralph Nader and the Sierra Club and urging them to resign from CED with a public expression of disgust.

The only disgust expressed so far has been for Sen. McConnell’s strong-arm approach. It did not escape the notice of the 10 executives chosen for this scolding that they just happen to work in industries with significant legislation pending before Congress. Yet, with admirable restraint, their reply to the good, if somewhat befuddled, senator was remarkably polite. They thanked for his years of diligent public service, they applauded his commitment to the First Amendment, but they made no apologies for siding with Ralph Nader, the Sierra Club, AARP, the League of Women Voters or anyone else when the cause is just.

In a more caustic tone, they also pointed out the obvious derailment in Sen. McConnell’s train of thought: “We find it ironic that you are such a fervent defender of First Amendment freedoms but seem intent to stifle our efforts to express publicly our concerns about a campaign finance system that many feel is out of control.”

And they asked Sen. McConnell not to reprise his past tactic of blocking a straight, up-or-down majority vote on reform. Fat chance of that, but for members of Congress who have yet to pick sides on this important issue, the choice just got easier.