Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform (Hardcover)

~ (Author) "To place modern issues of campaign finance in perspective, it is helpful to review, even briefly, the history of campaign finance and efforts to regulate..." (more)
Key Phrases: proxy speech, regulatory advocates, anticorruption rationale, Supreme Court, United States, Common Cause (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Law professor and Federal Election Commission member Smith does not beat around the bush: "Almost everything the American people know, or think they know, about campaign finance reform is wrong," and he proceeds to say why in a work that is both enlightening and entertaining. The popular perception of campaign financing is that of a corrupt system in which a few wealthy contributors have undue influence upon the decisions of lawmakers. In fact, Smith goes to great lengths to show, the system works pretty well. Comparatively, he says, not that much is really spent on campaigns Americans spend more on both potato chips and Barbie dolls and there is little if any proof that the system does in fact corrupt or privilege one group's interests over those of others. But reformers must reform, and in doing so, Smith says, they have made matters worse. Reform has tended to favor incumbents and wealthy candidates, to discourage grassroots organizing, to turn campaign discussion into a mush of platitudes. And with every reform failure the reformers must add another reform, until campaign finance regulation becomes a "mosh pit" of confusion and cross-purposes. This might all be funny were it not, Smith contends, that campaign finance reform is simply unconstitutional he argues that it threatens the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. To say the least, there are many who will disagree with Smith's findings and conclusions. But this is a marvelous contrarian view: moderate in tone, elegant in language, clever in argument. (Mar.)Forecast: Could a book be more timely? If Princeton promotes it vigorously, it should generate some controversy among pundits and sell honorably well.

Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist

In early 2000, Smith, a professor at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio, was nominated to a six-year term on the Federal Election Commission. That's significant because Smith is a notable academic supporter of the notion that money equals speech, the position partially espoused by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo and aggressively presented by some Republicans in opposing current campaign finance reform legislation. His book explores the history (and unintended consequences) of previous campaign finance regulation, discusses constitutional issues, and analyzes future alternatives. At the center of Smith's argument is a utilitarian analysis of the behavior of candidates, contributors, and voters. He challenges reformers' assumptions that too much money is spent on campaigns, giant contributions drown out the voice of the people, spending determines results, and campaign money corrupts Congress. Although more sympathetic to disclosure than to contribution limits, Smith is ultimately a First Amendment absolutist, urging that any limitation on campaign contributions restricts free speech. Both opponents and supporters of McCain-Feingold should spend some time with this thoughtful study. Mary Carroll
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 318 pages
• Publisher: Princeton University Press (March 1, 2001)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0691070458
• ISBN-13: 978-0691070452
• Product Dimensions: 9.5 x 6.4 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (10 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #906,299 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Best Analysis Of The Issue Yet..., July 30, 2001

By	Michael D. Mallinger (Woodbridge, VA USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

As the best known critic of campaign finance reform, Bradley Smith makes strong arguments not just against the legislation itself but against the philosophy underlying the entire movement. This is important, because many supporters of reform refuse to acknowledge that any case against their rationale exists. Many critiques of campaign finance legislation focus on proving that not nearly as much money is spent on campaigning as the public has been led to believe, or that the proposed legislation would give certain types of grassroots groups an unfair advantage over others. Smith's attack goes much further than that. He demonstrates why, in the long run, strict regulation of campaigns will harm everyone by crippling their ability to channel their talents into meaningful participation in the political process.

The first half of the book serves as a comprehensive survey of arguments brought against reform. He begins by analyzing why the proposed legislation would give incumbents enormous advantages over challengers. From there, he discusses how the term corruption has been expanded to mean anything that a legislator does to respond to the wishes of constituents who helped contribute to her campaign-whether or not a causal link can be established between particular contributions and particular legislation. He concludes it with a section on how limits placed on monetary expenditures made to pay for speech are, in fact, limits placed on speech itself because the expenditure of money to pay for speech is inextricably linked to speech itself.

In the second half, he deconstructs philosophical arguments used to justify reforms and turns them on their heads. He starts by pointing out that supporters of reform typically ignore the fact that most non-monetary means of influencing politicians are not distributed on an egalitarian basis. Thus, simply removing private contributions from our political system will not make everyone equal overnight. He develops this point by discussing the traditional notion of political equality-that "...Citizens are free to use their differing abilities, financial wherewithal, and personal disposition to become more or less active in political life, and to attempt to persuade their fellow citizens to vote in a particular manner." He points out that campaign finance reform is nothing more than an attempt to narrow the pool of individuals afforded this freedom.

He concludes by hammering this point home: "...Because the First Amendment...makes no distinction between the different types of political influence, it allows a maximum number of voters to participate and helps to prevent any one faction or interest from gaining the upper hand in political debate." This Madisonian indictment of the campaign finance movement goes above and beyond merely attacking various legislative proposals as incumbent protection schemes. It cuts through all the political rhetoric and reveals what campaign finance reform really is: an attempt by a coalition of elite groups to cast the rules of political debate on their own terms.

If you're concerned about free speech, read this book. You won't be disappointed.

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Converted Me!, November 14, 2002

By	"bruney6" (Columbus, OH USA) - See all my reviews

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.

8 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Fresh Thinking on an Old Problem, March 4, 2001

By A Customer

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.