President Bush thinks that free speech is "bad for the system."

Is there much left of the First Amendment?

I really wish there were a realistic alternative to vote for this year.

[Update at 3:20 PM PDT]

The guys at Power Line agree, and have further thoughts.

Wow! Rand in disagreement with Bush? I suppose Rand also disagrees with the President's assessment of Kerry's war record:

"The fact is this campaign is unprecedented in our praise of our opponent's service during Vietnam," Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

I disagree with the president on many things, Bill, and always have. I don't know where you've been.

Unfortunately, as a commenter over at Tim Blair's site says in response to my friend Ken Layne, the choice isn't between George Bush and Captain America. It's between George Bush and John Kerry. If Joe Lieberman had been nominated, despite the prospect of having to listen to his whiny voice for four years, I'd be tempted to vote for him (depending on who he chose as his foreign policy advisors). But he wasn't, and couldn't be by the current Democrat Party.

Rand, when I heard the president just talking about how these soft money ads are bad for the system, I had the same initial reaction as you, namely, hey, what about the First Amendment? But just because someone has the right to say something, or to run an ad, doesn't mean that the First Amendment makes their action immune from criticism. There are all kinds of things that we have the "right" to do that can and should be discouraged.

The president signed into law a bill that he knew (by his own admission) was unconstitutional, because it was politically popular. He thus violated his oath of office because he thought that it would be overturned by the Supreme Court, but they fell down on the job as well. It was one of the most disgraceful acts of his presidency.

But let's think of this from a different perspective ... by saying this, he can say that all he's really advocating is a change in the tenor of the conversation ... of course I don't mean to suppress anyone's free speech.

One ignorant question, though -- how can McCain-Feingold both suppress AND encourage free speech at the same time such that repealing the 527's now inhibits free speech?

I agree with your assessment.

But in his speech today, he didn't say this activity was illegal, he just said it should stop. Granted, he did say he thought he made this activity illegal, so be extension...I see your point. My point is better directed at those on the Left who scream censorship and violation of First Amendment rights anytime anyone is critical of their message. I stand by my general point, but concede that this was a poor example. Sorry.

I would like to see a change to the tax code and make the 527s subject to income taxes. They are no different than news organs except for their partisanship (excluding the NY Times). They are disseminating information but not 'owned' by a legitimate political party. Then you can remove any shred of legitimacy about the donations to these groups. Let's see who wants to give a non-tax deductible $15,000,000 contribution. Free speech doesn't mean without cost.

Bush's original finance reform plan was a good one. No limits on contributions with immediate, mandatory disclosure. But he fell down on the job with the signing of McCain-Feingold. I put that, the steel tariffs and prescription drug coverage as the serious downsides to a pretty good term overall.

But based on Kerry's attempt to silence everyone who disagrees with him via lawsuits, I fear he'd be much worse for the first amendment.

Bob

I should add that I would have no problem with Bush criticizing some specific ad. That's just free speech. But there's something very unsettling about the notion that there's something intrinsically wrong with people donating funds to get their political beliefs heard. I think that the founders would be appalled at the campaign finance laws--they seem to be exactly the opposite approach from what they intended as the purpose of the First Amendment.

I'm not sure which is more disturbing--that the president believes what he's saying, or that he doesn't.

I think that some sort of regulation of campaign financing is really necessary in order to avoid a variety of bad things from outright purchasing of votes to the formation of parties entirely dominated by fundraising (to an extent even greater than they are today). All that is really needed is a set of limits on party fundraising, and let the 527s and 501Cs do their own thing. Just having independent coffers is enough to ensure that there will be plenty of different views expressed. Even if there is coordination, human nature ensures that there will still be plenty of dissent and squabbling, and that's all that's needed to keep democarcy vital.