Contempt for the Law

When the executive, legislative, and judicial branches all fail to stand up for the First Amendment, maybe the bureaucratic branch should get a crack. The Washington Post profiles Bradley A. Smith, incoming chairman of the Federal Election Commission:

For Chairman Smith, almost all campaign finance regulation is wrongheaded, does the opposite of what it claims and routinely infringes on the right to free speech. Intellectual convictions, partisan interests and a Supreme Court decision are all pounding this former law professor, and he is getting a little testy.

"I'm not going to get sucked into this 'Will you enforce the law?' stuff," he replied to a question about how he will deal with one of the biggest issues to face the FEC. "I just don't want to answer it."

My hope is that he will enforce the law not at all, and McCain-Feingold will eventually sink into obscurity. My backup hope is that he will enforce the law with vigor and punctiliousness, prosecuting Americans of all stripes, Republican, Democrat, and Miscellaneous, Red, White, Blue, Purple, and Green—until it becomes intolerable to everybody. My expectation is that he will not enforce it until "The Republicans' failure to enforce McCain-Feingold" becomes an issue, and then will pick out a victim, perhaps Martha Stewart when she chooses her candidate.

Thanks to Free-Market.net for the link.

Comments

[Eric]

Ruthless enforcement of the drug laws hasn't turned public opinion because most folks don't want those drug laws overturned in the first place.

But your average Joe doesn't know much about McCain-Feingold, and if he starts seeing real, sympathetic people arrested and tried for daring to air a commercial, he'll get pissed. The key is a sympathetic defendant.

[Zathras]

So under McCain-Feingold, the powerful will get away and the poor will get hammered. The poor. We really are in the Land of the Nutbars, aren't we?

Some soft money donors and all national party officials favor the institutionalized corruption of the pre-M/F campaign finance system, and sold a lot of gullible libertarians on the idea that any reform was the path to tyranny. Most of this crowd is so disengaged from the way American politics actually works that they accepted as gospel the idea that campaign finance reform was an incumbent protection scheme for Congressmen -- almost every one of whom gets reelected just by showing up now.

The enthusiastic applause for this FEC Chairman's evident intent to refuse to enforce duly enacted laws is a charming coda to this sad tale of the chronically alienated.

[thoreau]

My skepticism of McCain-Feingold was never that it is tyrannical, but simply that it wouldn't really work. The whores in DC still get to bring in the bribes, just as they always have, but they changed some of the paperwork. The only part I actually found objectionable (as opposed to ineffectual) was the ban on issue ads.

As to incumbent protection: That myth has always bothered me. Gerrymandering is the #1 form of incumbent protection. A candidate with a $100 million campaign budget would still have trouble winning in a gerrymandered district. "Incumbent protection" is a line of BS that some libertarians buy into.

[hey]

drug laws haven't been enforced with a view to sparking revolt.. they've been enforced with a view to increaseing law enforcement budgets and keeping politicians elected...

two very different methods of strict enforcement

drug laws are enforced against "the criminal element", politically active types, and some unfortunates

but if the people in charge of enforcement didn't like them, they'd be raiding every law office, upscale bar/restaurant, university housing, brokerage firm, etc every day... that would really start pissing people off and get drug laws overturned

so all you need to do would be to start throwing the major advocates of campaign finance in jail, and then you'd see less support... this may actually happen, although M-F is great for republicans, as their base actually gives money, while the Dems rely on the guilty rich (in both senses of the word)

[joe]

I'm a city planner. I'm not going to get sucked into this 'Will you respect the takings clause?' stuff. I just don't want to answer it.

Because, like Smith, I think we bureaucrats should just ignore the law when we know what's really right.

[Mike Krempasky]

Oh, Kick Ass. Brad Smith is better than 99% of the Bush administration. I can't believe the dems ever agreed to let him sit on the FEC in the first place.

Consider - he wrote a book called "Unfree Speech: the Folly of Campaign Finance Reform."

Outstanding.

[Jason Ligon]

joe:

Interesting take. You will abide by any law passed by Congress out of your respect for the law?

[whistle blower]

joe,

somehow I figured you were a government employee wasting tax dollars by visting this site during your work hours when you should be doing your job.

[dlc]

Okay, cut the guy some slack. I am a private sector employee wasting my employer's dollars by visiting this site. I figure I am busy doing my share to lower national productivity - it's really a full employment program, I hope it catches on...:)

[joe]

Jason, in my official capacity, I am bound to abide by the law. In my personal life, I speed on the highway and whatnot like everyone else. Hell, I might someday be inclined to violate the law on principle.

But as a public official, principle is on the side of following the law and recognizing the legitimacy of the government's authority over my public actions.

People -> Government -> joe

[Eric]

Here's a vote for enforcing it ruthlessly, so the whole country sees how bad it is. If public opinion turns against it, Congress will probably, at the least, amend it, and at best, repeal.

But if this does happen, it won't start until safely after the November elections.

[thoreau]

Cuz ruthless enforcement of the drug laws has really turned public opinion against that.

Sorry, but however nice it sounds in theory to say "Show them how bad it really is!", in practice I haven't seen ruthless enforcement do that much to overturn laws.

[Warren]

I don't think ruthless enforcement would work, the powerful would be able to defend themselves and the poor would get hammered. That was the whole idea to begin with.

My hope is that he targets the biggest spenders. Just two or three from each of the major parities and prosecutes hard. Pressuring for contempt and perjury charges as a follow up. I'd like to see a US Senator actually held accountable, by serving time in a federal pondmeintheass prison, to the law he passed.

[Isaac Bartram]

"I'm a city planner. I'm not going to get sucked into this 'Will you respect the takings clause?' stuff. I just don't want to answer it."

Joe, the "takings clause" is in the Constitution just like the "free speech clause". Smith seems to be having a problem with a law he believes is possibly in conflict with the "free speech clause". His oath of office requires him to uphold the Constitution not every unconstitutional law that gets through congress. (Oh I know the SC said M-F is A-ok but then so were Dredd-Scott and the separate but equal case (I can't remember the name)and Hardwick v Ga. In other words we have not heard the last on this travesty). How would you feel if you were required to violate the Constitution in the course of your duties?

Your analogy is less than perfect I think.

[joe]

Yes, the analogy is less than perfect as an exact simile. But as a way of focusing libertoids' minds on the problems with cheering a bureaucrat who flouts the law in order to advance his own beliefs above those of constitutional officers, justices, and lesislators, it's as perfect a tool as I can imagine.

"How would you feel if you were required to violate the Constitution in the course of your duties?" If we're talking about obvious, undeniable violations, like rounding up Jews or uncompensated takings, I'd obviously resist. But then, I would not be the only one, and there would either be universal resistance/resignations, or a civil war within the bureaucracy.

But if the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a controversial (meaning, something like a majority of citizens, legislators, and executives supported it, while another large segment of same opposed it) law as constitutional, and the law survived within the existing system of checks and balances, I would not be so unbelievably arrogant and power-hungry as to substitute my judgement for that of the Supreme Court, Congress, and the many levels of executives above me who would have to endorse a policy before it got to me.

[Isaac Bartram]

"...cheering a bureaucrat who flouts the law in order to advance his own beliefs above those of constitutional officers..."

Excellent point!

After I posted my (admittedly snarky, that's what we do here) comment, I realized I had overlooked the legitimate objection that the rule of law is dependent on indifferent enforcers.

"I would not be so unbelievably arrogant and power-hungry as to substitute my judgement for that of the Supreme Court,..."

Again good point, I like to think that in this situation I would resign or would not accept the position in the first place (depending on the circumstances).