Posted May 27, 2006 by J. Gerald Hebert

A Response to anti-BCRA Propaganda

In response to an editorial misrepresenting BCRA in Investor’s Business Daily on May 24, the Campaign Legal Center sent the following letter:

To the editor,

Every once in while, an editorial comes along that is so factually inaccurate and so grossly misleading that it deserves an immediate reply.  Your staff Editorial, “Left Speechless” of May 24, 2006 certainly qualifies in that category.

The editorial states:  "The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which was supposed to end the alleged corrupting influence of money in politics, makes it a criminal act for any ad to even mention a politician 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election."  The law does no such thing.   It says that corporations (including not-for-profit corporations) cannot use their treasury funds for such ads. Individuals are free to run such ads as are corporate PACs funded by voluntary individual contributions.

The political ad buy in question was proposed by a Maine not-for-profit corporation.  The ad was estimated to cost $4,000, which could be paid for by a single contribution to a PAC (and the Maine group says they have an individual ready to make that contribution).  It was precisely because the proposed ad could still be run that the three-judge court found that there was no possible First Amendment violation.  Of course it could also still be paid for with corporate treasury funds if it were a pure "issue ad" about the Marriage Protection Act that did not mention a specific federal candidate.

The editorial staff did get one thing right.  The editorial's response of “duh” to court’s finding that the Maine group's proposed ad that the Maine group was clearly intended to influence the election was accurate.  But the fact that it is obvious to all that the ad naming Senator Snowe and criticizing her position on an issue just before an election is intended to influence the election actually proves why the ad falls within the electioneering communications provisions of McCain-Feingold, and therefore must be paid for with individual funds, rather than corporate and union funds prohibited in federal elections. 

Your editorial completely misstates what the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law actually requires.  As a result, your readers are left with the false impression that the law bans speech about incumbent members of Congress, when all it really does is require that certain ads be paid for with individual, rather than corporate, money.