Freedom For the Internet
by Paul M. Weyrich

The late Senator James B. Allen (D-AL) was one of the wisest men I have met who served in that august body and was fond of saying "When you hear the word 'reform' watch for the gold in the capitol dome." Like any conservative he was skeptical of the reformers who often achieved something rather different than had been intended.

Consider what happened after Watergate. The cry of the newly minted liberals who dominated the 94th Congress was "get money out of politics." They cited the efforts of the Nixon-Agnew ticket in 1972 to "suck up all available political money with a vacuum cleaner." So they passed legislation. Guess what was the result of that legislation? Political Action Committees (PACs).

Some companies and some labor unions organized PACs prior to 1975. When Congress banned their political contributions but did not forbid PACs, the Federal Election Commission said they were indeed legal and almost overnight PACs sprung up everywhere. By law the PACs were not allowed to coordinate expenditures but they legally could exchange information or interview candidates together. There are two examples. When the AFL-CIO PAC endorsed a candidate dozens of PACs followed suit and suddenly opened their checkbooks.

The lobby for the Republic of Israel had fewer ways to reach candidates about the survival of Israel. When one U.S. Senate candidate signaled his support for Israel following an interview with a PAC word spread that the PAC was endorsing the candidate.

After 1975 some eighty PACs were created in different communities. Today with the Internet it takes a nano-second for all eighty PACs to have word of an endorsement. $2,500, the new PAC limit under McCain Feingold, isn't much money. But by combining both the primary and the general election limitations, the sum becomes $5,000 per PAC. With eighty PACs suddenly $400,000 is available to the candidate. That will get his attention.

Big money was transferred from individuals to interest groups, which had lots of PACs. Big money remained in politics. That supposedly angered Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) enough to introduce draconian legislation. Many Senators and Congressmen who voted for their legislation did so believing the Supreme Court would declare parts of that law unconstitutional. Indeed the President, in signing the law, said he believed that parts were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold despite the Act's blatant efforts to curtail free speech. But big money was supposed to be taken out of politics.

The result? Billionaire George Soros funded many 527s. In other cases, such as Senator John Kerry's Swift Boat colleagues who would do anything to prevent him from becoming President, more modest sums started the effort and these smaller contributions enabled them to achieve their goal. At first liberals and Democrats were far ahead because of the 527s. By election time conservatives and Republicans had caught up. So did the so-called reformers get big money out of politics? On the contrary, a case can be made that a lot more big money was in the political process after McCain-Feingold than before its enactment.

The supposed purpose of McCain-Feingold was to empower ordinary citizens, the "little guy." In fact, like him or dislike him, Howard Dean changed the face of politics by campaigning through his website. Thousands of dollars were contributed to Dean by virtue of that website. He had empowered the little guy. For a time it looked as if he might go the distance. The original Dean effort made a difference and now no major campaign for the Presidency, the Senate or Governor and in some cases even for the House of Representatives exists without the Internet to communicate on issues, to volunteer, to walk the precincts and, of course, to contribute by credit card.

This is fine. Perhaps McCain-Feingold actually achieved something. Not quite. Thanks to the Federal Election Commission, it appears that the regulators are going after campaign websites. They possibly want to regulate the bloggers who express an opinion about a candidate and his views. Having empowered ordinary citizens, the FEC, thanks to McCain-Feingold, now is preparing to regulate ordinary folks who comment about or who contribute to campaigns. This is insane. Returning to the late Senator Allen's point where is the reform objective? I believe that when ordinary folks have freedom in the political process the regulators want to stifle free speech and ordinary participation.

Congress needs to revisit this whole question. (I suppose as bloggers they will want to prevent my saying so). There was interest in the 108th Congress in both the House and the Senate to repeal provisions in McCain-Feingold that curtail free speech. Neither House did so. In this Congress Representative Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) has introduced legislation which would remedy part of the problem. No Senator has stepped up to the plate but it is early enough in this Congress for that to happen. The Leadership needs to twist some arms to see that the appropriate legislation is crafted and passed.

The Internet should be regarded as an electronic newspaper. It is clear that regulators cannot interfere with newspapers and magazines. Why then the Internet? Because like radio it uses a certain amount of bandwidth? That outdated concept has no longer any place in our political system. It is based on the outmoded idea that the public owns the airwaves so the Federal Communications Commission can regulate it. How is that relevant when half the nation now has cable and when satellites are growing fast as a means of programming transmission? The FCC asserts no jurisdiction over cable or satellites. It also should leave the Internet alone.

Yes, bad things take place on the Internet just like bad things take place on cable and satellite television. Compared with the good that is done on the Internet in the political arena there is absolutely no excuse for regulation. The explosion of ideas and exchanges on the Internet is the best thing to happen to the political process since the early days of the Republic. Ordinary citizens are learning that they can have an impact on the system. Do we want to kill that initiative so regulators can claim more jurisdiction? Those of us who care about the political process on both sides of the spectrum and everyone in the middle had better start guarding the Internet the way the NRA guards the Second Amendment. The government will kill the Internet over my cold dead typing fingers.

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

Email the Editor