Chip Taylor

The internet, blogging, and campaign finance "reform"

Campaign finance reformers scoff at the idea that money equals speech. Denying any equivalence is the justification for limiting campaign contributions.

Ironically, the real action in campaign finance reform in the post-BCRA era seems to be aimed more at limiting speech than finance. The reasoning seems to be that speech equals money. I've commented on that in the past.

Now, the FEC is considering extending its regulations to govern speech on the internet.

This is wrong in so many ways. But let's look at it from the sincere reformer's¹ point of view. As I understand it, the sincere reformers are concerned that our present funding system leads elected officials to be responsive to a too-narrow range of interests -- particularly those with a lot of money.

Fair enough. But there are at least two practical problems with the changes you are bringing about:

1. Most of the reforms so far have the effect of making incumbents even more immune from electoral challenge. That is hardly the way to make them responsive to a wider array of interests.

2. A cheap communication medium like the internet promises to provide a more-level playing field for those without a lot of money. Heavy-handed regulation will turn it into a minefield.

So please, before you start clamoring for yet more regulation of campaign speech, consider whether you are helping or hurting your own cause.

1. By "sincere reformer" I mean people other than cynical incumbents like John McCain who are concerned primarily about limiting electoral competition.

UPDATE: Another example of speech = money. HT: Radley Balko.