| REDRESS |
|
|
NONPROFIT POLITICKING Arbitrary Distinction Between Issues, Candidates Las Vegas Review-Journal, Editorials Page, 11-19-02 On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to reconsider federal laws that limit the ability of non-profit organizations to participate in political campaigns. The case, which has no connection with the McCain-Feingold law, turns on the hairsplitting distinction in federal law between supporting issues and candidates. The nation's founders clearly believed in unencumbered political speech, through laws restricting campaign spending have eroded those rights. A 1986 high court ruling permitted nonprofit groups such as the National Rifle Association to spend unlimited amounts of money on political "issue" advertisements and other forms of advocacy - but they couldn't make contributions directly to candidates' campaigns. Corporations and labor unions are also prohibited from making campaign contributions unless they funnel the money through political action committees, which are bound by their own rules and regulations. In the current case, an anti-abortion group from North Carolina sued the Federal Elections Commission, arguing that the ban on campaign contributions violates the group's First Amendment rights. A federal district judge and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. The backers of campaign "reform" fear that a ruling in favor of the anti-abortion group would unleash the apocalypse. If nonprofit organizations can support candidates, the reformers say, there would be little way to stop corporations or labor unions from evading the ban on campaign contributions by forming their own nonprofits and using those groups as conduits to fund candidates. So what's the big deal? Why shouldn't corporations underwrite political campaigns? Why prohibit labor unions - so long as their money is generated from voluntary contributions and not merely extorted from mandatory membership dues - from openly backing candidates who share their beliefs? The distinctions between candidates and campaigns is completely artificial. Candidate X may well be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Strip casinos or the Culinary union. But let that be a campaign issue, leaving it for voters to decide whether a candidate's benefactors make him more or less qualified to hold elective office. The justices should sweep those nitpicking regulations aside, and let political advocacy flourish. WORKING TOGETHER TO ATTAIN FAIRNESS | ||
|
||
|
| ||
|
| ||
