Speech Isn't Free

Tonight on PBS's NOW program, host David Brancaccio surveyed several of the campaign public funding initiatives around the nation, including Arizona's "Clean Elections." (Watch a 6-minute segment here.) The state's current governor, Janet Napolitano, is the only sitting state executive who ran using public financing. In Arizona, that means the candidate cannot accept donations of more than $5, then a formula kicks in that provides public dollars, which hypothetically gives everyone the same amount to spend on campaigns - and keeps "big money" out of elections.

The movement has certainly resulted in strange bedfellows. On NOW, both Republicans and Democrats spoke in favor of and against public financing. Brancaccio pointed out, for instance, that in Arizona Republicans gained more legislative seats using Clean Elections, a strategy that many people initially saw as a Trojan Horse for progressives.

Certainly even those who support the idea realize there are still wrinkles to iron out, and more than a few loud voices continue their attempts to dismantle public financing.

The ACLU objects to the movement, for instance, because they see it as a restriction on speech. I guess they have to, given their philosophy, just like they protect Nazi rallies. So be it, but I'd argue the current system restricts even more voices - those that don't happen to have $20 million to run for Congress, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to campaign for the Legislature or city council.

One can understand why Big Pharm, Big Oil, developers, realtors, and other corporate groups are fighting Clean Elections and similar versions, since their money has historically provided access and influence. Suddenly, their dollars aren't eligible, while people giving $5 feel like they have an equal voice. But the comment that blew me away during Brancaccio's interviews was one by Ben Barr from the ultra-conservative Goldwater Institute, a Phoenix-based think tank that Barry Goldwater would be ashamed to share his name with.

Barr trotted out the usual shibboleth that limiting dollars in politics also limits speech. Brancaccio proposed a hypothetical: Developers want to build a mall, and they pour tons of money into one candidate's coffers to help him exercise his "free speech." While the anti-mall candidate has far fewer dollars to get his message out. To this Barr replied:

Speech isn't free.

There you have it. No bullshitting around with philosophical gymnastics or Constitutional debate or historical reflection. Barr's saying what we all know, but they seldom put it so honestly. No money, no speech. Just like Jefferson wrote it.