Campaign Finance Reform: Could it be that nearly 200 members of our esteemed House of Representatives simply don't recognize the First Amendment? Yes, it could, and it's a telling commentary on our condition.
It's no surprise, really. These are mostly the same people who voted to force the free-speech-strangling McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law on the country.
That 2002 legislation, which passed 240-189 in the House and 60-40 in the Senate, heavily regulates political campaign contributions, especially those that pay for issue ads. The First Amendment didn't matter then; it doesn't matter now.
Give credit, though, to Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, who authored, and the 225 members who voted for, the Online Freedom of Speech Act that was cut down Wednesday in the House. They rightly viewed the Federal Elections Commission's effort to place online political expression under the McCain-Feingold law as unacceptable in a free society.
Too bad there aren't more in the House who see it the same way. Despite the 225-182 majority in favor of exempting Internet communication from the law, the bill needed a two-thirds majority — 47 more votes — to pass because of procedural rules that limited debate and prohibited amendments on this piece of legislation.
Exactly how this vote will affect blogs, which have deeply bruised the mainstream media and political class with instant truth-seeking and unfiltered, blistering commentary, won't be known for some time. It's not even clear how something as simple and personal as e-mails, which were specifically exempted in the Online Freedom of Speech Act, and Web links will be impacted.
But know this: Many lawmakers voted against the bill because they want to crush the burgeoning Web talk that has revealed their malfeasance and lack of accountability. They want to continue to get away with the same things they've gotten away with for years, and they need the campaign finance law to protect them from those pesky watchdogs.
Meanwhile, much of the mainstream media are celebrating. They're happy to see their competitors, detractors, whistle-blowers and fiskers in the blogosphere feel the cold hand of regulation.
Maybe the bill passes if it's brought back under normal conditions and doesn't require a two-thirds majority. With 225 votes the first time around, it should. That would leave the Senate to approve an identical bill by Democratic Sen. Harry Reid. Then President Bush can affix his signature to ensure that some zone of free political speech is preserved in America.
No matter how it turns out, we're troubled that Washington can so cavalierly reject one of our founding principles.
We're not shocked, however. Too many elected officials can't stand the glare of fair criticism and will do anything to keep the lights low.