200712

December 2, 2007 5:08PM

The Politics of Free Speech Change for the Better

The politics of free speech are changing fast.


The presidential public financing system is all but dead, largely because the candidates are raising so much money they don’t need to dun the taxpayers for campaign cash. The Democrats have raised a lot more money for the coming election than the Republicans. The Supreme Court is starting to favor free speech in campaign finance cases and casting a cold eye on laws like McCain‐​Feingold.


For most of the past three decades, so‐​called “reform” groups have dominated DC battles about campaign finance. These special interest groups lobbied Congress while their lawyers practiced the art of restricting speech before the Federal Election Commission.


Now that too is changing. A new group, Speech​Now​.org, has formed to fight restrictions on speech. They just asked the Federal Election Commission to issue an advisory opinion about whether their fundraising must follow the contribution limits in federal election law.


Contribution limits exist – in law, if not in fact – to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. But Speech​Now​.org is not giving money to federal candidates for office, and it is not incorporated (corporations cannot legally give money to parties or candidates). The organization is funded solely by individuals, some of whom want to give more than $5,000 to support the work of the new group.


What are they planning to do? The Center for Competitive Politics, which along with the Institute for Justice provides legal counsel to Speech​Now​.org, says that “the group wants to run TV ads supporting and opposing candidates on free speech issues during the 2008 election cycle.”


Think about that for a minute. A group of citizens wants to come together to pool their resources to speak out for and against candidates on matters concerning free speech. They don’t plan to give candidates or the parties money, so the corruption threat does not exist. What could be more in line with the First Amendment and the Constitution? And yet… Speech​Now​.org finds itself asking the Federal Election Commission “mother may I?” just to exercise its constitutional rights.


That should make you angry.


But think about this too. Speech​Now​.org is something different from what we’ve heard on these issues for so many years, a group that plans to defend the First Amendment outside the courtroom. And somewhere in this nation is at least one person who is willing to give Speech​Now​.org more than $5,000 for that effort.


That gives me hope.

December 2, 2007 8:39AM

Should the Government Have a Monopoly on Money?

Writing for the New Republic, Alvaro Vargas Llosa asks the fundamental question of whether the Federal Reserve has been a net plus or a net minus for the American economy. Looking at the Fed’s track record, which includes disasters like the Great Depression and serious mistakes like the more recent high‐​tech and housing bubbles, Llosa astutely wonders whether money is too important to be left in the control of government:

Some of the country’s greatest economists, including Nobel Prize winners, have been saying for years that the Federal Reserve has probably caused more problems than it has solved since its creation in 1913. Its role in the last century’s boom and bust cycles is a matter of record; it looks as though it played a similar role in the current housing market crisis too. While the creation of the Federal Reserve was essentially a response to a series of bank runs, those crises were mild compared to the ones that were to follow. … All in all, financial instability has been far greater since the creation of the Federal Reserve. What did the Great Depression teach us? Essentially that even with the best of intentions, it is impossible for the authorities to manage the supply of money in accordance with the exact needs of the economy. A country’s economy is the sum of millions of people making decisions that no single individual is in a position to anticipate. … The current housing market and debt market crises are in good part the children of the Federal Reserve. By cutting rates 13 times between 2001 and 2003, and then keeping them very low for years, monetary policy contributed to the housing bubble. …once again, the Fed has turned out to be a factor of financial instability.