In attempting to untie " a Knot in Campaign Finance", Robert Frank frays the rope with whispered intimations about the evils of free political speech.
Bob Bauer has already commented on some of the shortcomings in Frank’s piece:
"It is surprising, then, to find in Frank’s analysis comments that are redolent of the older, staler ways of framing campaign finance choices. He does accept the First Amendment; he treats it, however, as a tragic fact of constitutional life. Conflicts flourish because the politicians and financial interests can seek refuge in the First Amendment where the government cannot reach them. He says that "free speech and good government are conflicting goals," a position he describes as ‘harsh reality.’
Is free speech really opposed to good government? Whether one thinks so depends, among other variables, on the definition of terms-on what we understand both ‘free speech’ and ‘good government’ to be."
I will not pretend to offer a better critique of Frank’s commentary than is offered in Bauer’s well-written post, but Frank’s piece – given its quiet hostility towards the First Amendment – deserves some mention from CCP.
Frank writes that "campaign spending is driven by the same logic that governs a military arms race," but this can be forgiven because the "waste from campaign spending is relatively trivial – at most, a small fraction of 1 percent of national income." Frank goes on to say that this level of spending is not the problem, but given such language, one wonders whether Frank would approve if America spent more of its money on electing its officeholders.
But the most startling of Frank’s comments are when he declares that "the harsh reality is that free speech and good government are conflicting goals."
Bauer observes, "the view Frank takes of the First Amendment is badly one-sided: he sees it as limiting what government can do that is good. But then again it can be seen as limiting what government can do that is not so good-what it can do to suppress political action or mute dissent. If campaign contributions present the danger of conflict of interest, does campaign finance regulation enacted by officeholders (or parties or Progressive elitists, however you wish to see it) who have a personal (political) interest in the very legislation that citizens expect to have evaluated in the public interest. The First Amendment helps with that problem, too."
Almost exactly a year ago, Robert Samuelson wrote in the Washington Post that "free speech’s value is not only a diversity of views; it is also the ability of people to contest those views."
But Frank, in the name of "good government," would eliminate competing factions if only the Constitution allowed it. This naive rationale that competing factions are somehow evil and are a result of our campaign finance system is often embraced by proponents of taxpayer-financed campaigns who hope for "better" government.
Frank alludes to taxpayer-financing as a "cure" when warning about a "charismative tyrant" who might be an extremely succesful fundraiser, but who, unlike Frank’s preferred candidate, Barack Obama, may not be a "champion of good government." Of course, what constitutes "good government" is open to debate. Fortunately, that pesky First Amendment still allows opportunities to engage in that debate.
