How many Republicans does it take to screw over free speech?

April 20, 2010   •  By Jeff Patch
Default Article

Democratic congressional leaders continue to tease news-starved reporters and campaign finance observers with the latest logistical minutiae regarding the timing of the Van Hollen-Schumer campaign finance bill.

Today, news broke that Rep. Mike Castle, a Delaware Republican running for Vice President Joe Biden’s former Senate seat, will co-sponsor Van Hollen-Schumer. Shocker! One of the only three Republican co-sponsors of a bill to implement congressional taxpayer financing will support other campaign finance regulations? Stop the presses!

Roll Call reported that “Democrats Claim [A] Bipartisan Breakthrough…” The Hill took a slightly different approach, writing that “GOP senators avoid co-sponsoring campaign finance reform bill.” The story noted that Sens. Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Susan Collins of Maine both rebuffed Democratic overtures to sign on to the measure.

Politico wrote that Van Hollen-Schumer is designed to help Democrats “…make the case that they’re tougher than Republicans on Wall Street. They see that as a winning argument in an otherwise bleak 2010 electoral landscape in which experts expect Democrats to suffer deep cuts to their congressional majorities, or to lose the majority all together.”

According to CQ-Roll Call, Van Hollen and Schumer “declined to indicate when a final proposal would emerge, other than to say it would be introduced ‘shortly.'” They introduced their framework for a bill Feb. 11.

With the recent faux-flurry of activity surrounding Van Hollen-Schumer, it’s worth asking a truly beltway question: How many minority party lawmakers does “bipartisan” legislation require?

To be sure, when considering First Amendment rights, no threat to free speech could be justified by a popularity referendum—no matter how cloaked in bipartisanship, sunshine and puppies. However, this explicit effort to brand campaign finance regulation as bipartisan seeks to convey the fiction that campaign finance curbs enjoy a broad base of support—instead of remaining the policy fetish of a few Washington insiders and interest groups.

In that spirit, perhaps the co-sponsorship of single Republican member of Congress (no Republican Senator to date) does not magically transform a concept into a “bipartisan agreement,” as Van Hollen and Castle claim.

What mark of GOP support would better capture this oft-used Capitol imprimatur? We could start with 14: the number of Republican House members who voted for McCain-Feingold and still serve in the U.S. House:

Rep. Mary Bono Mack of California, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Rep. Timothy Johnson of Illinois, Rep. Tom Petri of Wisconsin, Rep. Todd Platts of Pennsylvania, Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware, Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Rep. Steven LaTourette of Ohio, Rep. Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey, Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, Rep. Zach Wamp of Tennessee and Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia.

Kirk and Castle are both seeking Senate seats in progressive-leaning states with Republican primaries either behind them (in Kirk’s case) or noncompetitive (in Castle’s case); that contrasts to former campaign finance regulation champion Sen. John McCain, who faces a heated Aug. primary against former Rep. J.D. Hayworth.

Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, a Republican co-sponsor of the Fair Elections Now Act, has not yet signed on to Van Hollen-Schumer (nor has Platts, the other Republican co-sponsor).

Former Reps. John Thune of South Dakota and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina (now both U.S. Senators) voted for McCain-Feingold when they served in the House. The other Senate Republicans who voted for McCain-Feingold are Sens. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Dick Lugar of Indiana (and, obviously, McCain). Also, don’t forget Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska voted against McCain-Feingold, and he’s still around. McCain has said publicly that he does not favor a comprehensive response to Citizens United beyond addressing disclosure issues. A spokesman for Collins has made similar public comments.

So, 15 Republicans in the House are on record supporting the campaign finance restrictions in McCain-Feingold or taxpayer financing for congressional campaigns, yet Democrats can only secure one Republican co-sponsor for Van Hollen-Schumer? Seven Republicans in the Senate voted for McCain-Feinhold, and not one will sign on to Van Hollen-Schumer?

That doesn’t sound like a very convincing “bipartisan agreement.”

Jeff Patch

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap