[WaPo] House Democrats poised to endorse public financing of congressional campaigns

yay! taxpayer-funded political campaigns:

The public financing provision would give candidates up to $6 for every dollar raised from small donors and also establish a pilot program to give voters $25 campaign vouchers to be donated to any candidate. It has attracted outsize scrutiny from Republicans, who are attacking it as “taxpayer funding” for campaigns — more specifically, Democratic campaigns. And some experts question whether public financing is necessary after an election cycle that saw small, grass-roots donors power numerous successful congressional campaigns.

Leading the opposition has been McConnell, who called the provision a “big taxpayer bailout of political campaigns, attack-ad makers and campaign consultants” in a recent floor speech.

“This is how out of touch with taxpayers the modern Democratic Party has become,” he said. “They saw these proposals to take the American people’s tax dollars and funnel them straight into more attack ads, yard signs and telephone calls, and thought, ‘What a great idea! Let’s put it in.’ ”​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...4d6b7840b82_story.html?utm_term=.283d1d39a39f

 

and limitations on free speech. what could be better:

House Democrats Say Shush
H.R. 1 would chill the speech of groups on the left and right.
51 Comments
By
The Editorial Board
March 7, 2019 7:05 p.m. ET

House Democrats are voting as early as Friday on H.R. 1, a campaign-finance reform bill that they allege is an attempt to rinse politics of “dark money.” But even their pals on the left aren’t buying it.

One of the more searing indictments of the bill is a March 1 letter from the American Civil Liberties Union, normally found these days supporting the left. In a 13-page letter, the ACLU said that some of H.R. 1’s provisions “unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech rights of American citizens and public interest organizations.” Such measures, the group said, would silence “necessary voices that would otherwise speak out about the public issues of the day.” Indeed.

Provisions in the bill would require groups that, say, run ads to disclose the names of donors above $10,000. That would force political groups, the ACLU notes, “to make a choice: their speech or their donors. Whichever they choose, the First Amendment loses.”

The bill covers groups that run ads about, say, climate change that refer to candidates but don’t endorse them. What this means, the ACLU says, is “advocacy groups speaking about the issues that matter most to them, like abortion or gun rights, may see no alternative but to steer far clear of the regulated zone to avoid penalties” or “mandatory disclosure of their private associations.”

H.R. 1’s provisions on disclosure veer into the absurd. It sounds as if the model for the bill’s authors was the horrifying list of side effects that now accompany pharmaceutical advertising. The bill’s premise appears to be that voters are too stupid to sort out the motives behind the groups putting up such messages.

The Institute for Free Speech offers an example of these ever-longer disclosures. Imagine, for instance, that an “environmental group sponsors a 30-second radio ad calling on President Trump to reduce air pollution.” Here’s how the required disclaimer likely would unfold:

“Paid for by Americans for the Environment, cleanenvironment.org. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.” Then the head of the organization must say: “I am Jane Doe, the President of Americans for the Environment, and Americans for the Environment approves this message.”

And then the ad would have to list the first and last names of the group’s top two financiers, even if their donations weren’t given directly for the advertisement. The group would need to list five donors if the ad appears on television.

The ACLU broadly supports regulating online ads, but it notes that H.R. 1 is written to “regulate online ads that appear outside of candidates’ districts, to persons with no power to vote for or against the candidate.” The purpose, in other words, is to chill speech.

Congressional Democrats have been determined for years to find means to silence their political opponents on the right. But the ACLU is right that H.R. 1 would also smother the speech of groups such as Planned Parenthood or other progressive causes.

House Democrats will gloat to the press that they’re merely champions of good government. Just don’t make the mistake of trying to buy time to disagree with them.

Appeared in the March 8, 2019, print edition.
​

https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-democrats-say-shush-11552003550?mod=hp_opin_pos2

​