THE LAST WORD
George F. Will
McCain and the Oath
He has not been bashful about advising the Supreme Court. He should weigh in again, against aspects of McCain-Feingold.
John McCain aspires to take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect and defend, the Constitution," but some of his actions have raised doubts about whether he would do that. Two controversies, one now before the Supreme Court and the other perhaps headed there, raise questions pertinent to his grasp of constitutional values.
One case challenges the "millionaires' amendment" to the McCain-Feingold legislation that rations political speech by restricting the financing, content and timing of it. The other case concerns the right of SpeechNow.org to speak freely against people like McCain. If he still supports the former and does not support the latter, he should not take that oath.
McCain-Feingold's purported purpose is to combat corruption or the appearance thereof. The Supreme Court has said that it will be deferential to the legislative branch if but only if the restrictions it puts on political activity have the purpose of preventing corruption.
The millionaires' amendment, however, obviously has nothing to do with preventing corruption. Its patent purpose is to assuage the legislators' dread of self-financing opponents. It says:
When a self-financing House candidate spends more than $350,000, his opponent gets three benefits. The opponent can receive contributions of $6,900, triple the statutory limit of $2,300 per election (primary or general). Second, the donors' tripled contributions are not counted against those donors' aggregate contribution limits for the two-year cycle. Third, the opponent is permitted to coordinate with his party committee unlimited party expenditures that otherwise would be limited by statute. Senate campaigns are subject to even more generous provisions for candidates with self-financing opponents.
This incumbent-protection measure mocked McCain-Feingold's pretense of being concerned exclusively with corruption—candidates cannot corrupt themselves by spending their own money on their own behalf. The Supreme Court says corruption arises from quid pro quo arrangements connecting contributions with particular actions of a public official. Hence, self-financing candidates have minimal susceptibility to coercive pressures and serve McCain-Feingold's purported purpose.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: DragonScorpion @ 03/16/2008 2:16:04 PM
Comment: Anyone that doesn't acknowledge the obvious corrupting influence that money has on politics either possesses a naiveté bordering on stupidity or they're just completely dishonest.
Those who advocate for individuals or corporations or organizations to be able to give as much money {and thereby influence} to political candidates as they want as part of protected "free speech" is advocating corruption in politics.
It becomes rather obvious why this is such an issue for Republicans as their chief priority is to
protect business & preserve wealth at any cost. Of course one must keep in mind, too, that their understanding of what unscrupulous favors money can buy runs deep.
Posted By: smartprimate @ 03/10/2008 5:06:20 AM
Comment: It all depends on whether the SCOTUS views this as purely a free speech issue or a commercial speech issue. Because money is involved, even with the noble SpeechNow, the Supreme Court can view this as commercial speech. If so, the State can restrict speech if they can demonstrate a substantial interest (see 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island). As a naturalized immigrant I too made a similar oath to ???preserve, protect and defend the Constitution???. This law may be imperfect; and if so it will evolve or die. But to assume that Sen. McCain disregards or is too cavalier with the Constitution because you view it differently is unfair. Nine justices can listen to one argument and come up with up to nine, and sometimes more than nine, opinions. Perhaps an A for effort ??? even McCain???s Legal Advisor Ted Olson would agree with you, but there has to be a start.
Posted By: smartprimate @ 03/10/2008 5:05:50 AM
Comment: It all depends on whether the SCOTUS views this as purely a free speech issue or a commercial speech issue. Because money is involved, even with the noble SpeechNow, the Supreme Court can view this as commercial speech. If so, the State can restrict speech if they can demonstrate a substantial interest (see 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island). As a naturalized immigrant I too made a similar oath to ???preserve, protect and defend the Constitution???. This law may be imperfect; and if so it will evolve or die. But to assume that Sen. McCain disregards or is too cavalier with the Constitution because you view it differently is unfair. Nine justices can listen to one argument and come up with up to nine, and sometimes more than nine, opinions. Perhaps an A for effort ??? even McCain???s Legal Advisor Ted Olson would agree with you, but there has to be a start.