The following coalition letter was sent to Sen. John McCain today, urging him to quit trying to infringe upon free speech. Citizen Outreach Project was one of the signatories…
February 13, 2007
The Honorable John McCain
United States Senate
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510Dear Senator McCain:
On behalf of millions of grassroots Americans represented by the organizations listed below, we write to express our stark opposition to any legislation that further curtails free political speech. Specifically, in a January 26, 2007 article published in The Politico, a top aide in your office announced that you will introduce legislation in the 110th Congress “to further clamp down on independent ‘527’ groups.”
The irony, of course, lies in the fact that the ‘527’ organizations you now seek to silence are a direct consequence of McCain/Feingold’s abridgments of free political speech.
Senator McCain, the Founding Fathers couldn’t have been more clear in drafting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when they stated unequivocally, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech… or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” We maintain that these words mean exactly what they say, and stand at the core of our rights as American citizens.
Furthermore, we find it puzzling that just as you seek to stifle even more political speech via legislation aimed at ‘527’ organizations, you refuse to answer direct questions about whether you’ll limit your own ability to speak by campaigning for President within the limitations of the presidential public financing system. Indeed, the most direct answer you have given to date was during a November 19, 2006 interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week, during which you responded to the question by stating, “I don’t think – it depends, one, on what other candidates do…”
To be clear, as a matter of principle we consider it fundamentally improper for taxpayer dollars – even if voluntary – to be used to subsidize political campaigns. As you seek, however, to further suppress the voices of the American people at times when it’s most important for them to speak – during elections – we remain curious as to why you haven’t committed to applying similar speech limitations to your own campaign.
We hold the 2002 McCain-Feingold legislation to be one of the greatest legislative assaults on the First Amendment ever passed by Congress. Just as we opposed that legislation, so too do we oppose any further restrictions on political speech.
Moreover, we find it troubling that you would introduce and advocate new speech-stifling legislation at a time when it appears that your presidential campaign is willing to forego similar limitations in favor of your political aspirations.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that you neither introduce nor support any further legislation designed to muzzle political speech.Respectfully,
Jeffrey Mazzella, President, Center for Individual Freedom
David Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union
James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel, James Madison Center for Free Speech
David N. Bossie, President, Citizens United
Richard Viguerie, Conservative HQ
David Ridenour, Vice President, The National Center for Public Policy Research
George Landrith, President, Frontiers for Freedom
Chuck Muth, President, Citizen Outreach Project
Doug Bandow, Vice President for Policy, Citizen Outreach Project
Jason Wright, Institute for Liberty
Mark Fitzgibbons, GrassrootsFreedom.com
Kay R. Daly, President, Coalition for a Fair Judiciary
Michael D. Ostrolenk, Co-Founder/National Director, Liberty Coalition
Dr. William Greene, President, RightMarch.com
Steve Milloy, Publisher, JunkScience.com
Peggy M. Venable, Director, Americans for Prosperity – Texas
Christine Carmouche, GrassTopsUSA
David Strom, President, Taxpayers League of Minnesota
Richard O. Rowland, President, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
Posted on February 13th, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: National
While I might agree with your concerns about “clamping down” on 527 groups, I must respectfully take issue with the notion that public financing of campaigns somehow inhibits freedom of speech; I submit it actually expands it.
In the 28 states that use full or partial public financing systems (most notably Arizona and Maine) candidates of both parties have been able to run and win who would never have been able to make their case to the voters if it weren’t for public financing. Even better, once elected their constituents can rest assured that they (the elected officials) are free to represent them, owing no favors to anyone except the voters.
Also, unlike the presidential system (which I agree needs reform), the state systems’ spending limits are augmented by additional “matching funds” IF the publicly funded candidate is outspent by a privately funded candidate. This helps keep the playing field level so all qualified candidates can exercise their freedom of speech, and assures that the election is more about the free exchange of competing ideas instead of simply who’s got the most money. The lack of such a matching funds provision, coupled with dollar allotments which date back to the ’70’s is largely what has made the presidential system impractical/unsusable in today’s billion dollar campaign environment, and incidently explains the reluctance of Senator McCain and others to use it.
If we say that public tax dollars shouldn’t be used to fund campaigns, then we’re saying they should be funded instead with private money…which means labor unions, PACs, corporations and wealthy individuals. Not only does this unfairly afford the wealthiest among us way more “freedom of speech” than anyone else, it also means that only these wealthy institutions and individuals get to select and annoint candidates as suitable for voter consideration, while reaping all the disproportionate access and influence that goes with that. I can’t imagine any better use of public funds than to insure free and fair elections, based on open competition in the marketplace of ideas.
Public financing (the broken presidential system notwithstanding) is a decidedly non-partisan issue which has proven to limit the excessive influence of private money in politics, and has been well received by the vast majority of candidates and voters in those states that have it (over 80% of the Maine legislature and almost 60% of the Arizona legislature–Republicans and Democrats alike–were elected with non-partisan public finds).
With all the scandals we seen in recent months, and with corruption in politics polling as one of the top reasons for voters’ disatisfaction in the last election, Republicans in particular should be getting on the public financing bandwagon and redeeming their bona fides as champions of ethical government. Several distinguished Republicans, past and present, have already noted the corruptive influence of private money and/or advocated for public financing. They include President Teddy Roosevelt, Senator Barry Goldwater, Senator Warren Rudman, Senator Alan Simpson, Representative Paul McCloskey, Senator George Voinovich, Governor Jodi Rell, and of course Senator John McCain.
I think Republicans make a serious error if they allow the Democrats to run away with this issue as they’ve already begun to do, claiming the “reform mantle” exclusively for themselves. Whether you want small government or big government or something in between, the one thing I think we can all agree on is that we want representative government, and that means government that represents all the voters not just big campaign donors.
Thanks for your consideration.