A few weeks ago, I wrote a letter to the Washington Post concerning Al Gore’s plan to spend $300 million promoting his views and policy proposals on the issue of global warming. In the letter, I wondered "how campaign finance ‘reformers’ and ethics ‘watchdogs’ who continually bemoan the fact that private citizens are allowed to spend money to influence public opinion and political debate will react to Mr. Gore’s campaign."
We now have an answer, at least regarding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Speaker Pelosi is, among other things, a staunch advocate of "eliminate[ing] the influence, the corrosive influence of big special-interest money in the political process." This reformer’s response to Gore’s spending large amounts of money to influence the political debate on an important issue is apparently to jump on board and star in one of his ads. Needless to say, this appears to be a pretty clear violation of the very "reforms" she champions.
Speaker Pelosi is, of course, a sitting member of Congress, and faces a primary challenge in June for her San Francisco area district. As such, starring in a television commercial run nationally (and contrary to the opinions of some of my more conservative friends, San Francisco is indeed a part of this nation) by a special interest group with a $300 million bankroll would appear to step over the line of what is and is not allowed.
The New York Sun has a great article on the Speaker’s problem, which includes quotes by our good friends Jan Baran and Jim Bopp, Jr.
I’m sure Speaker Pelosi never dreamed that campaign finance laws could possibly be used to limit or prevent speech by her on behalf of, as her office put it, a "nonpartisan effort on climate protection." If, as a spokesperson for Gore’s organization said, the ad doesn’t violate campaign finance laws because it is "a nonpartisan issue ad that has a call to action to the public on climate change," then I’m guessing we can look forward to more ads starring other members of Congress on equally "nonpartisan" issues that include a "call to action to the public."
It’s hard to say what’s more ridiculous – the idea that having the sitting Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives appear in commercials speaking to people across the nation on an important issue is somehow "corrupting," or that supposedly pro-"reform" politicians don’t see the inherent contradictions in pressing for ever-more-burdensome political speech regulations while at the same time not understanding that the rules apply to them, too.
