Customer Reviews

Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

There are lots of sensationalistic books out there about politics and money, most with sensationalistic titles: "The Money Chase," "The Money Men," "The Buying of the President," "The Best Congress Money Can Buy," "The Corruption of American Politics," etc. ad nauseum.

Smith's book is different. Smith argues that the problem of money in politics is vastly overblown, and presents both empirical data and theory to show why. He explains how money in politics actually helps political outsiders and traditionally disadvantaged groups and candidates. He argues convincingly that money makes politics *more* equal, not less. If any of these notions seem strange, consider (as Smith shows) that those who write from the opposing point of view are largely the ones who have created our current campaign finance system.

The writing is at times eloquent, yet straight forward and to the point. For example, would government funding solve the problem? Smith points out that "We have 100 percent government financing of the presidential general election campaigns now." Yet no one thinks that has solved the problems of presidential elections. Should campaign spending by interest groups be limited? The McCain-Feingold bill tries to do so on the grounds that candidates should "control" their campaigns. But Smith asks, "Are efforts to persuade fellow citizens how to vote 'corrupting,' or are they the essence of democracy?" Do you join those who ridicule the position of the United States Supreme Court, that limits on campaign spending restrict free speech? Well, says Smith, "Suppose that government limited the amount that a newspaper could spend to publish its paper, or that a broadcast station could spend to be on the air?" He adds, "If spending money were not a form of speech, the First Amendment would become hollow, since any effort to spread one's message could be stripped of First Amendment protections simply by limiting the expenditure of money." Smith shows how regulation restricts, rather than supports, the ability of average Americans to make their voices count. Big players employ consultants and lawyers to work around the law, but average Americans get run over by it. "[Regulation] has served only to distance Americans from politics and politicians," he concludes.

Again and again, Smith takes common assumptions about campaign finance, and turns them around. The end result is a book about money and politics that is interesting and different. After reading this book, the honest reader will find it difficult to think about campaign finance reform in the same old way.

This book changing my way of thinking 180 degrees. I was a huge John McCain and Campaign Finance Reform fan, but I read this book just to see what the other side had to say. I am sure glad I did! Smith points out many problems with alleged reform on mulitple levels. If you are interested in campaign finance reform, however you may feel about the subject, I suggest you read this book.

Mr. Smith's book is a breath of fresh air in the altogether stagnant debate about the "evil" of money in politics. Smith gives a concise and enlightening history of attempts to control money and speech in American politics and devotes a substantial portion of the book to looking at various "remedies" to the "problem of money." He offers a unique and well-researched look at the many wrong assumptions and fallacious ideas surrounding the current debate on campaign finance. However, as well-written and easy to read as the entire book is, NO ONE should miss reading the last chapter. It is thoughtful, passionate, mind-expanding, and should compell everyone who reads it to stand up for freedom of speech, lest we lose it forever.

I sense that Bradley Smith underestimates the problem of mammoth campaign contributions by wealthy individuals and organizations. Many citizens like myself are uneasy when money seems to play an unjustifiable role in the political arena. Nonetheless, the author presents us with a compelling argument that current campaign reform initiatives such as the McCain-Feingold bill will likely cause more harm than good. "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech," is interpreted by many people in a very absolutist manner; the word "no" is suppose to mean exactly that, and it is not a negotiable starting point. Smith cherishes this principle but goes one step further and clearly points out the practical consequences likely if this constitutional dogma is ignored. The devil is in the details, and we are forced to ask who is going to decide what constitutes legitimate funding of present day political matters? Do Americans truly wish to leave this task to even the most honest and benevolent members of the U.S. Congress? Smith believes that inevitably, human nature being what it is, the Congressional incumbents will enact rules favoring their own reelections. Can anybody logical dispute this overwhelming probability? The Founding Fathers rightfully embraced a pessimistic notion of human nature. After all, the at least metaphorical reality of Original Sin is still alive and well on planet earth.

The concept of unintended consequences is very relevant. Almost certainly, any new law passed by Congress will be subjected to meticulous examination by those desiring to minimally obey the letter of the law while violating its spirit. Rules must not be "broken," but they are to be be stretched and manhandled to the utmost. Any misplaced comma, an "i" not dotted, or a "t" not crossed, will be an excuse to make fools of the original intentions of the bill's formulators. Do we really want more complexity in our political affairs? Also, a cynic should be concerned with any legislation providing new opportunities for attorneys to earn money. I will, though, add a strong suggestion overlooked by the author: the mandatory need to guilt trip our fellow American voters! Rarely, if ever, does anyone mention that this debate would not even be occurring if most adults increased their political awareness by investing a few more minutes a day in keeping up with the issues. Please note, that I said minutes, and not hours. Citizens are not victims, and should not be treated as such. Bradley Smith has performed a valuable service. He has converted me over to his way of thinking. You might also raise the white flag of surrender. I adamantly urge the reader to obtain a copy of --Unfree Speech.--

I can't speak for others, but in my case I was always of the impression that campaign finance was the best solution for the country. I bought into the idea that there was massive corruption in government, and that a way to curb this would be through restricting contributions from large donors. This is what I was always led to believe, so naturally I would be for campaign finance reform.

After reading Bradley Smith's book, however, my view on the issue has completely changed. He documents in great detail the harm of campaign finance, how it can restrict the political speech of challengers and grassroots movements, and ultimately how the reform process will never end if it continues, and will only bring on more restrictions to help close "loopholes" in the current set of reforms.

Though I believe there is still a great deal of discrimination and corruption in politics (just look at the voter caging that took place in the 2000 and 2004 elections), I no longer am of the viewpoint that money is THE key factor in this problem, and limiting its use in the campaign process will only hurt the average US citizen's means of obtaining information and supporting a candidate in a monetary sense, rather than promote an even playing field for all those involved in an election.

We live in a strange age where advocates for free speech like Bradley Smith are cruxified in the newspaper and those who call for government regulations of speech are lauded.

In this important work, Smith points out the this hypocrisy and others dealing with America's number one feel good issue -- campaign finance reform.

America's staunchest proponents for freedom of the press are also America's strong propnents of regulation of political speech. Smith takes them on head-on with an impressive array of facts, figures and historical example.

In Smith's view, and the view of our Founders, the answer to problems dealing with political speech lie not in government regulation but in more political speech. Too bad American's news media and opinion makers don't take this message to heart.

I greatly appreciate Professor Smith's analysis. If nothing else, the rarely heard opposition to campaing finance reform is set forth clearly in this book. There is, however, some shortcomings in his analysis.

First, take this passage (there are other analogous ones in the book that prove a similar point) from page 71:

"(Steve) Forbes indicated that he would not have sought the nomination had former congressman and secretary of housing and urban development Jack Kemp decided to run. Kemp chose not to run in large part because he did not want to engage in fund-raising. Had Forbes been able to donate to Kemp the $25 million he planned to spend on his own campaign, Kemp might have run and would quite likely have been a frontrunner for the Republican nomination."

It is easy to see that from this bit (and others) that Professor Smith does not wish to gloss over that fact that money in fact DOES affect politics. Later on that same page he entertains a thought experiment in which all campaign contributions were banned to see who would run in such a scenario. He admits that those with the most name recognition (athletes, celebrities, incumbents, succesful business persons active in their community, etc.) would be able to win. And importantly, he says that those who would win in the experiment wouldnt be much different than those who win now. It would seem then, that name recognition or fame also affects politics.

Thus, the following two things Professor Smith does not challenge: money affects politics, and name recognition affects politics. Now, it is also apparent that money affects name recognition (think TV ads). Given that Professor Smith does not argue with these things, an proponent of reform is unlikely to be swayed. For proponents the unconstested fact that money affects politics (and can buy at least some degree of name recognition) is enough to justify contribution limits. So, it would have been better to see Professor Smith adress more directly the proponents onjections.

I also find lacking that Professor Smith does not mention much about spending for state or local elections and how money affects politics in those instances. For example, in the Austin, TX city council elections recently, 4 Democratic candidates with near identical views ran. The election came to a runoff between the two top contenders, both of whom had TV ads while the other two did not. Does this disprove Professor Smith's arguments? No, but it would be better if he discussed local elections as well.

This is the best book I have ever read in my entire life! It is just breathtaking! The words, and sentences are so moving! They describe clearly what'g going on! It is my favorite book of all times! I wish everyone could buy a copy! Also, his daughter Ellie Smith is quite a writer, and when she publishes her first book, everyone should buy it! I read her work in a magazine.

I WISH I COULD HAVE GIVEN IT 500 STARS! READ IT! THAT'S MY ORDER! Man I love this book!