The reporters and editorial writers at the New York Times are powerful advocates of imposing new restrictions on campaign spending. They typically refer to the leaders of interest groups like Common Cause as “advocates of campaign finance reform.” That helps the cause of restricting campaign finance. After all, who could be against “reform”?


So it is noticeable when the New York Times calls the partisans of restrictions something other than “reformers.” In today’s edition, a Times reporter twice called them “advocates of changing campaign financing.”


It is both a revealing and misleading choice. It is misleading because these people seek more restrictions on campaign finance. To be sure, they expect new restrictions will lead to changes in campaign finance, but what they actually hope to do is impose new rules that restrict campaign spending.


Here’s the revealing part: The Times has never before called the Shays‐​Meehan‐​Common Cause crowd “advocates of changing campaign finance.” They are usually called “reformers.” (I checked on Lexis‐​Nexis). Why the new name?


The “advocates of changing campaign financing” along with congressional Republicans are trying to eliminate 527 groups; today’s article concerns one skirmish in that war. That effort against 527s is expected to harm the Democrats who used the groups extensively in 2004.


So if a person pushes restrictions on speech like McCain‐​Feingold that were expected to help the Democrats, the New York Times called them “advocates of campaign finance reform.” If the same person demands restrictions expected to hurt the Democrats, the Times dubs them “advocates of changing campaign finance.”


I know the New York Times would never have a partisan purpose in advocating restrictions on political speech. Still, this new term for their former friends does create a disturbing appearance of partisanship.