Following the Money
The real debate is about suppression of political speech
Supporters of McCain-Feingold complain that there is too much money coursing through electoral politics and fueling negative advertising. But the framers did not adopt the First Amendment so that people would be exposed only to uplifting appeals or to shield incumbents from criticism. McCain-Feingold supporters argue that the current system gives advantages to those with money. But in any free society those with money and the politically adept will always have advantages over others, no matter how strenuously you suppress political speech.
This debate confirms political scientist David Mayhew's thesis, in America's Congress, that members of Congress can often have a significant impact on public policy. The Senate would not be having this debate without John McCain, and McCain would not be encountering serious opposition without Mitch McConnell. McCain, as always, approaches politics as a matter of honor. "We will fight the good fight," he told reporters. "If we lose, we lose." McConnell, more cerebral, looks at the legislation with a cold eye, with a view to the result.
There is another player: George W. Bush. His principles for reform, set out on March 15, include paycheck protection and nonseverability. He has been careful not to threaten a veto, to make Democrats think they may be bound by what they vote for. But if his conditions are not met, a veto is possible--indeed, likely, if Bush wants his markers on other issues to be respected.
advertisement
