When people say they want to clean up politics with campaign finance reform, they rarely want to do so just for cleanliness’ sake. Time and again, we see “reformers” pushing campaign finance regulations that are intended, stealthily or not, to slant the political landscape in the favor of their preferred policies and politicians. A not-so-stealthy example of this self-serving motivation can be found in John B. Judis’s October 2 article at The New Republic, “The Shutdown Standoff Is One of the Worst Crises in American History: Welcome to Weimar America.”
Judis claims that America’s “social contract” is being “voided, largely through the initiative of rightwing Republicans from the deep South and rural Midwest.” Judis’s historical analysis is sketchy, to say the least, as he attempts to draw a straight line from John Calhoun to modern Republicans, but his proposals for reform are the important part of the article.
In considering how to resolve the “challenge presented by right-wing Republicanism,” Judis observes, “There seem to me be two kinds of things that have to happen—one having to do with political movements and the other with structural changes in American politics.” (sic)
The political movement Judis advocates is simply the defeat of those nasty Republicans voiding the sacrosanct social contract. In his words, “Politically, the Republican far right has to be marginalized.” As for structural changes, those are also concerned with silencing those that Judis disagrees with.
He writes, “Structurally, much of the power of the radical right depends upon two loopholes in American politics that need to be closed. The first are the campaign finance laws, which allow eccentric billionaires like the Koch brothers and Peter Thiel to exert inordinate influence over American politics.” He says that the country needs a liberal Supreme Court that can overturn the Court’s decisions in both Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo.
If you didn’t notice, the “loophole” Judis wants closed is the First Amendment, which prevents the government from restricting someone’s speech simply because it dislikes how influential it is. Judis may think that the Koch brothers, Peter Thiel, and other wealthy people engaged in politics have too much influence, but to quote The Dude, “that’s just, like, your opinion, man.” To quote a slightly more reputable source, the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.”
Judis cites well-known supporters of libertarian causes, the Koch brothers and Peter Thiel, as his examples of who has too much influence, but omits any mention of mega-rich donors on the Democratic side, such as George Soros. He implies that equalized influence in politics is necessary for the very survival of the republic, but doesn’t hold his own speech to that standard. Consider Judis’s position: as a writer for The New Republic, his speech receives the benefit of a national media platform, which is unavailable to the vast majority of Americans. Why should Judis or George Soros be allowed to exercise their “inordinate” influence over voters, but not the Koch brothers or Peter Thiel? Judis’s approach to politics isn’t hygienic, it’s hypocritical.
The First Amendment is, and always will be, the best means of addressing unwarranted influence in politics. If a speaker is in error or willfully advocating for policies that are bad for the country, other speakers will expose him, and the public will stop being swayed by his words. Elections are the ultimate test of which speakers have been most influential, and in elections we all get only one vote. If Judis disagrees with the speech that voters are finding influential, he’s free to try to change their minds, but he’s not allowed to silence the people that influenced them in the first place.
Judis’s article is valuable because most writers are clever enough to at least partially conceal their partisanship when advocating for so-called campaign finance “reforms.” But not Judis. He wants to reform the system so that people he likes win more and people he dislikes win less. That’s the drumbeat of the “reform” community, and it’s one First Amendment advocates need to call out at every opportunity.
