Politicians on the take & "Free Speech"

An Oregon lawmaker, Rep. Dan Doyle (R)Salem, recently resigned under a cloud of questions over campaign expenditures that he claimed on his expenditure reports. Only, several of the listed recipients say they never received a dime... begging the question of what he did with the money. But that's not the purpose of this post.

In an opinion piece published in the Oregonian, Derek Cressman of TheRestofUs.org, a nonpartisan organization that tracks money in politics, and Andi Miller of Oregon Common Cause used Rep. Doyle to illustrate a fundamental problem with campaign finance laws in Oregon.

Doyle's contribution reports reveal another part of campaign finance theory that doesn't square with reality. His contributions did not come from constituents who wanted to voice their opinions about his candidacy. They came from corporations, lobbyists and political action committees. Doyle did not report any cash contributions from ordinary citizens in amounts less than $50. Not one.

In fact, Doyle appears to have received only a single contribution from any individual. James Bernau, president of Willamette Valley Vineyards, gave him $1,000. Only one of his PAC receipts (from the National Rifle Association) came from a group committed to advancing ideas, rather than the narrow economic interests of a particular industry.

Doyle raised a little more than $76,000 for his campaign. With almost none of it coming from constituents, it is demagoguery to suggest that this money represents the speech of voters. It is nothing more than corporations working to elect candidates who will advance their agendas.

Doyle is only the most egregious example, though. Of all the candidates for the Oregon legislature the 2002 election cycle, only 4% reported receiving campaign contributions of less than $50.

Stupid Oregonians! Why do they tolerate this? Ah, but that's where it gets even more interesting... or disgusting, as the case may be. In 1994 Oregonians passed a ballot measure which capped campaign contributions at $100. But, the Oregon Supreme Court struck down the law, claiming that campaign contributions and expenditures are "free speech" and thus not subject to limitations. Cressman and Miller leave no doubt as to their take on that ruling:

This misguided ruling by the Oregon court is out of step with two major decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld limits on campaign contributions under the U.S. Constitution. As a result of the Oregon court's uniquely warped thinking, Oregon is now one of only five states with no limits on campaign contributions or spending.

The only recourse Oregonians have is to amend their constitution with language that makes it clear to the Oregon Supreme Court that money is not the same as free speech and that explicitly authorizes limits on campaign contributions and expenditures. Doyle's problems may serve as another reminder of the need to do so.

Yes!! I've been arguing for years now that money is not speech! I don't care if some court claims otherwise. The simple fact of the matter is that when I open my wallet I don't hear voices. And I do not believe for a second that the fine statesmen who gave us the First Amendment meant something other than language-based communication when they used the word "speech."

If the example of Rep. Doyle doesn't demonstrate the fallacy of equating money and speech, then I don't think anything will.