The Supreme Court has decided not to take up the Citizens United case I wrote about Friday.

The Court basically said it doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear the case, so this wasn’t a refusal to hear the case on its merits.

The SpeechNow.org case is still making its way through the system.

It’s nice to see it put so forthrightly:

Public financing of political campaigns — the true end-goal of all campaign-finance regulation efforts — has one aim, and one aim only: to entrench a permanent Democratic/statist advantage in the American system of government.

As I’ve been arguing for years, there is no more serious threat to our democracy.

Comedy Central has picked up a show — originally created for Amp’d Mobile cell phones — called “Lil’ Bush: Resident of the United States.” It re-imagines the president, vice president, secretary of state and secretary of defense as grade schoolers. And, as you might imagine, it’s not exactly pro-lil’-Bush.

It’s a good thing, then, that Bush isn’t running for reelection, and that Cheney isn’t running to succeed Bush. Comedy Central and the company producing the show are certainly corporations. And the show definitely mentions the name of a candidate.

It has potential violation of McCain-Feingold written all over it. (Think I’m nuts? Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11″ had to curtail its advertising during the 2004 campaign season for just this reason.)

(via Darcy)

Over at the Cato blog, John Samples points out a rather interesting new bit of terminology over at the Times, as regards campaign-finance "reform."

It seems that when new campaign-finance regulations are supported by Republicans and aimed at hurting Democrats, they are no longer "reforms" but "changes."

Yes, yes, a subtle shift. But don’t think for a second it’s an accident.

A paper in Florida shut down by campaign-finance law?

Brad Smith says the battle for online freedom of speech isn’t over yet.

He is, of course, correct. As he says, the enemy here is relentlessly hostile to free speech. No battle is ever won. Just delayed.

I’m not sure why Ramesh feels moved to defend John McCain’s statements on the First Amendment, but over at The Corner, he writes this:

McCAIN AND FREE SPEECH [Ramesh Ponnuru]
Some conservatives are criticizing the senator for saying, on the Imus show two weeks ago, "I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government." I’m no fan of McCain’s campaign-finance regulations, or of his vote several years ago for a constitutional amendment to modify the First Amendment to facilitate such regulations, or his remark a few years ago that he would outlaw negative ads if he could find a constitutional way to do it. And that past colors our reception of this latest quote, as it should. But considered by itself, it doesn’t seem quite so outrageous as it is being described. Presumably the reference to "quote First Amendment rights" was meant to suggest that McCain doesn’t believe that his preferred political reforms implicate real First Amendment rights. He wasn’t expressing disdain for the First Amendment as he understands it, but disagreement about what the First Amendment means. Conservatives (especially in the past) have often advanced narrower readings of the First Amendment’s speech protection than liberals, and would have been annoyed by the charge that they were therefore against the First Amendment.

Ramesh is certainly right to flag McCain’s use of the phrase "quote First Amendment rights." But did many people mistake McCain’s meaning the first time around? The fact that McCain doesn’t consider political speech a core First Amendment right is the nut of the whole problem.

Of course McCain respects the First Amendment as he understands it (whatever the hell it is he thinks it protects). But the fact that the senator doesn’t understand one of the most basic principles of our constitutional order — and seemingly fails to do so because he’s blinded by the perceived rightness of his own views on money and politics — is central to why he should probably never be president.

Over at Skeptic’s Eye (where regular blogger Allison Hayward is out of the country), former FEC commissioner Brad Smith and anti-campaign-finance-regulation-progressive (there’s a mouthful) Bob Bauer are having a fascinating discussion of why the Federal Election Commission is broken. It’s not, as John McCain & Co. would tell you, because the agency is "captive" to the very parties it regulates.

Instead, both agree that the agency is captive to a far more dangerous crowd: the campaign-finance-regulation lobby.

To quote from Bauer’s most recent installment:

First: the reform community is an interest organized solely for the
purpose of monitoring, enforcing and seeking change in the law. The
resources they devote to this purpose vastly exceed the sums that
candidates and political organizations will spare from budgets reserved
for their core missions.

Second, the reform organizations
active in law enforcement and law-making efforts control press
coverage. To the extent that the FEC is reached by public appeals or
pressure, it is largely through the press. On any given day, a member
of the Commission or the Office of General Counsel may or may not hear
from a candidate or party, in pleadings or testimony, but she will scan
the papers and read the editorial or op-ed output.

This is undoubtedly true. Every time an enforcement or regulatory issue comes before the FEC, like clockwork the Washington Post will chime in with an editorial ghost written by Democracy 21.

What’s even worse about this whole system is that the process is practically designed to be used as a political weapon, as opposed to a regulatory one. To quote Brad Smith’s most recent entry:

The complaint process is one that actually provides an incentive to
file frivolous complaints. The complainant typically benefits merely by
filing the complaint, and rarely gains any added benefit from the
resolution of the complaint. This latter point is true even if the case
goes against the respondent, since the resolution will usually come
after the election, a happenstance dictated in most cases by even the
most minimal regard for due process – such as allowing time for an
answer and an investigation. Complainants bear none of the cost of
investigation or litigation, all of which is thrown onto the
government. These factors provide a strong incentive to file weak or
frivolous complaints, aiming less at vindicating any public right than
at harassing political opponents. And this in turn creates an incentive
to sensationalize the charges.

These are two of the sharpest people in the country on the problems with campaign-finance regulation. Some of it’s a bit dense (which is precisely the intent of the people trying to shut you up). But anyone concerned with the survival of free speech in the place where it matters most — in the midst of political campaigns — should check out the discussion.

I’ve been remiss in not linking to this City Journal article by Brian C. Anderson sooner — not least of which because it quotes from my campaign-finance-lobby reporting extensively.

It also hits some other interesting topics, including the liberals who want to bring back the "fairness doctrine." This, of course, is the doctrine stating that broadcast outlets must balance every minute given to conservative opinions with a minute given to liberal ones. The idea is essentially to force more liberal opinions onto the air, regardless of the market for them — or, alternately, to get networks to just pull conservatives and forget about broadcasting opinion altogether.

The removal of the fairness doctrine in the 1980s brought us conservative talk radio. Now that Air America has proved unable to rival Rush & Co., some people would just rather shut all speech down.

As is typical.

More Pew money to influence money in politics.

Aside from the usual issue of these reformers arrogantly assuming that their money is the only clean money in politics, Robert Bauer asks just what all of Pew’s money has bought. Pew claims its cash has bought increased esteem for the political process.

Bauer disagrees:

What is the evidence that public trust in the political process has
increased as a result of these reforms?  There is none, because it has
not.  Confidence in the nation’s leadership is very low; Members of
Congress, separated from soft money, rank well below all types of
leaders. … Public "participation" has not risen appreciably by any known or
accepted measure.  There is no reason to believe that turnout levels
rise or fall with the tides of campaign finance reform; and turnout,
save for Presidential turnout in certain of the hotly contested states
in 2004, remains weak in federal, state and local elections.

Right, as always. 

This is apropos of nothing, but whenever I hear conservatives (especially our Dear Leader) talk about "activist judges," I just can’t help but flash back to March 27, 2002 (the day he signed McCain-Feingold into law):

However, the bill does have flaws.  Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns.  In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all
individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections.

I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment.

I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an
election.  I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.

Leadership.

In my last TCS article, I said it wasn’t worth celebrating that the FEC had — in its infinite wisdom — deigned to grant the Web site Fired Up! the press exemption.

Well, I hate being right.

It seems that at least two FEC commissioners believe that everyone on the Internet should remain under the tightest level of suspicion. You never know when some unauthorized speech might slip through.

Allison Hayward has more.

The Online Freedom of Speech Act, which The Post endorsed here, failed the House. It had a majority, but not the two-thirds needed under the rules.

Here’s an account from Allison Hayward. Bob Bauer lays out why this is a really big setback for freedom of speech on the Internet.

I firmly believe that the speech-regulation coalition is cracking (as the House vote shows) and that real progress will eventually be made in rolling back these laws. But far more work is needed.

McCain ignores his own law. Again.

Of all the budget cuts suggested by the pork-busters in the House, the elimination of the presidential public financing system ought to be among the least controversial. It’s a waste of money, it’s welfare for politicians and it has not moved America one inch, vote or dollar closer to the “clean” elections campaign-finance lobbyists claim they want.

The usual crew has sent the usual outraged letter to Congress. The always delightful Allison Hayward (formerly of the FEC, currently of somewhere hopefully far less dreadful) has some fun picking it apart here.