On Point: More shamelessness

Thursday, April 27, 2006

The Colorado Constitution declares, with simple eloquence, that "every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject."

So what were Republicans promoting this week in a House committee? Why, an amendment for the statewide ballot that would have trampled on Coloradans' ability to speak, write or publish whatever they will.

As you might have guessed, we're talking about the latest chapter in the squalid history of campaign finance reform. Republican lawmakers were seeking to curtail fundraising by independent political committees known as 527s - and, by a single vote, Democrats defeated the effort. But the issue is not about to go away, and for the time being both sides should be ashamed to look at themselves in a mirror.

After all, who are usually the first to rail against the supposedly corrupting influence of big money in politics? Democrats - yet they now defend 527s because wealthy liberals exploit those groups most effectively.

Who are usually the first to argue against limits on campaign contributions because they stifle the volume of political speech? Republicans - yet here they are, pushing to clamp down on one of the few means left by which citizens can amplify their voices by pouring their own money into a political cause.

Former Republican Sen. Bill Armstrong summed up what is at stake in a letter he wrote after learning of the proposal. "I am well aware that a handful of rich and willful Democrats spent millions of dollars against our candidates last time," Armstrong said. " . . . But the bottom line is this - it doesn't matter whether we like what they did (I don't) or the result, including our loss of key legislative seats. They were only exercising their rights as citizens. The right of citizens to express their point of view on any subject - particularly about candidates and political issues - is just basic. It's Civics 101. It's the American way."

Loosen the restraints

Amendment 27 "won't necessarily reduce the amount of money in politics. It will simply force it underground. Big contributors, who have the most at stake, will funnel their cash through whatever instruments they can dream up to bypass the limits in the law. If the past 30 years prove anything, it's that these evaders always stay one step ahead of the reformers."

- Rocky Mountain News editorial, Oct. 2, 2002

And so it has come to pass. If anything, the situation today is even worse than we predicted, as Rep. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, explained when I asked him why he was sponsoring the dreadful amendment to muzzle 527s.

"Amendment 27 has been an abject failure in trying to get money out of politics," he argued. "Now the system is totally skewed toward 527s. Candidates (for state House or Senate seats) are limited to raising $200 at a time while 527s can literally raise $200,000 or more at a crack . . . People who step out to run for office should be on an even footing with people not running. But they're not. They literally have no control over their campaigns" in highly contested races.

Bizarre, no?

The solution to the straitjacket on candidates and parties, however, is not to strap a straitjacket on those who retain their political rights. It's to loosen the restraints on those who've lost their freedom.

Nixon vs. markets

This paper's lead editorial Wednesday quipped that some Republicans were "embracing a regulatory agenda (on energy) that would make Jimmy Carter grin." It's a good line, and accurate so far as it goes, but it might mislead readers in their 20s and 30s who haven't read much about that era.

All three presidents during the 1970s pushed atrocious, anti-market energy policies that either worsened shortages or wasted billions of dollars, but the worst was not the pious peanut farmer from Plains, Ga. It was Richard Nixon.

USA Today this week published a handy chart reminding us of the energy policies of various presidents. While Nixon did authorize "construction of the Trans Alaska Pipeline" - a plus - he also "backed price controls, rationing and lowering the national speed limit to 55 mph."

Price controls and rationing? Government policy doesn't get any more anti-market than that.

Ironically, Carter actually initiated America's great era of deregulation by appointing Alfred Kahn to the Civil Aeronautics Board and then signing the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. But Carter could never quite see the logic of applying the same free-market logic to energy - and instead signed an excess profits tax.

Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, writes On Point several times a week. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.