Campaign Finance Song and Dance

"Campaign Reform Wins Final Approval," reads the top headline in today's Washington Post. "Senate Votes 60-40; Bush Says He Will Sign 'Flawed' Bill." Thus ends, for the moment anyway, one of the longest running theatrical shows in the nation's capital, a veritable Chorus Line (or Les Misérables, take your pick) of self-aggrandizing song and dance.

"An Extraordinary Victory," says The New York Times. "At Long Last, Campaign Finance Reform," says Time. As Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), one of the co-sponsors of the new legislation, humbly put it on his official Web site, "With the stroke of the President's pen, we will eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars of unregulated soft money that has caused Americans to question the integrity of their elected representatives." Elsewhere, McCain has claimed the bill will end pork-barrel spending as we know it.

The new law attempts to do three basic things: It bans "soft money" contributions to national parties, raises to $2,000 the amount people can contribute to individual candidates, and bans labor unions, corporations, and advocacy groups from running "issue ads" 60 days prior to an election (and 30 days before a primary).

Which is to say the law contravenes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the most curious fact -- and certainly the greatest rhetorical victory -- of the campaign finance debate is how supporters have been able to argue openly about regulating political speech in a country that never stops complimenting itself on its freedom of speech.

Ah well, assuming the law withstands legal challenges, we can let history be our guide and look forward to the inevitable revival of this debate in a few years, when it will become clear yet again that money is the root of all political evil and the only thing that can save us from ourselves is further restrictions on explicitly political speech. After all, the current laws themselves were borne of earlier outrage, back when Chorus Line was still in full glory on Broadway. "The government spends $2 trillion a year," maverick Federal Election Commission member Bradley A. Smith told Reason just last year in an interview more current now than the day it took place. "It claims the right to regulate everything. Folks are going to figure out a way to participate in the political process."