The New York Times clinging to dead ideas

March 24, 2009   •  By Jeff Patch
Default Article

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments earlier today in Citizens United v. FEC. This morning, The New York Times published a ridiculous editorial arguing that the Supreme Court should reject all of Citizens United’s arguments to preserve the flawed regulatory regime of McCain-Feingold.

The Times is most concerned about the Court overruling Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce, a ruling that prevented corporations from using money from their general treasuries to fund express advocacy. The Times doesn’t just attack that provision, though. It splits from several other respected organizations and media outlets that perceive restrictions on content like Hillary: The Movie to be dangerous First Amendment violations.

Campaign finance super lawyer Bob Bauer comes to the rescue and points out the absurdity of the Times’ editorial in a must-read blog post:

And the reason for this wholesale dismissal of all of Citizens United’s arguments? That the failure to hold the line here will bring on, or near, the collapse of the campaign finance laws-or, more precisely, that part of it which is McCain-Feingold. "If Citizens United prevails, it would create an enormous loophole in the law and allow corporate money to flood into partisan politics in ways it has not in many decades."

For years, at a different time, these dark prophecies passed for argument about the campaign finance laws and carried weight with a wide audience, leading the press on this issue. No more. The Reporters Committee has shown that there is room now elsewhere in the press for more careful thought about modern campaign regulation.

The Times could have risked this care while still arguing for preserving Austin and for the application of at least disclosure requirements. It did not bother.

Bauer lays out a compelling case for how intellectually bankrupt the reform community has become on certain issues (although he would certainly phrase this more delicately and narrowly). When faced with credible challenges to campaign finance regulations, the so-called reform community usually retreats into name calling, platitudes, euphemisms, and decrying the undue influence of "special interests," lobbyists and corporations. It’s attack mode all the time, and there’s very little fact to back up the alarmist rhetoric about money and politics. Reasoned opponents are derided as absurd for pointing out that there is no proof and little evidence that contribution limits or taxpayer financed campaigns system have measurably reduced corruption, improved government, or led to any other desirable outcome.

Here’s the problem with the Times’ argument (Read their editorial): They moan and gripe about the influence of money and politics without any sense of the value of free speech by all in our pluralistic democracy. What, exactly, is the harm in allowing corporations — or unions — to fund electioneering communications? Is a corporation, by virtue of being a corporation, evil and undeserving of advancing the interests of it and its employees before a powerful government?

How is it that the New York Times Co. (eek! an evil corporation!!!) can use its media platforms to influence elections with editorials (as the First Amendment allows), but other companies seeking to fund speech are automatically corrupting and debasing to democracy? American voters are responsible enough to exercise their rights without Big Campaign Brother leveling the playing field.

Jeff Patch

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap