The Chronicle has spilled quite a bit of ink on its news and editorial pages agitating in favor of House Bill 1348, which is broadly characterized as campaign finance legislation.
Interestingly, the bill would also curtail political speech. The Chronicle only hints at as much in today’s editorial:
The proposed legislation would clearly define political action committee administrative expenses, the one area where corporate or union funds can legally be spent. A key provision would ban such funding for attack ads against candidates in the closing days of a campaign.
That’s not exactly what it would do. The editorial idealists were more honest in an editorial published February 28:
There is no shortage of sources for campaign money. Any individual – including corporate executives, employees and union members – can donate his own money directly to a candidate or to a political action committee. Political action committees – set up to promote company, union or other special interests – then pool the money and make contributions to candidates.
To get around the restrictions, corporations have turned to the tactic of airing ostensibly independent attack ads against candidates they wish to see defeated. (Unions in Texas , strapped for cash, can seldom afford to go this costly route.) These attack ads masquerade as issue ads designed to educate voters. Typically, without mentioning the opponent the special interest favors, these radio and TV spots criticize a particular candidate’s record or personal background and advise voters to call or write the target and set them straight. Because they avoid using key phrases like “vote for” or “vote against,”the ads have gone unregulated and can be funded secretly.
If such issue-oriented political advertising is that bad, then it should be banned outright, not in the final 60 days of a campaign. But, one gets the sense it’s only bad to the editorial idealists because unions allegedly have less money to spend than other groups. And how does one differentiate legitimate issue-oriented advertising from “attack” advertising against candidates? A far preferable approach would be simply to enhance disclosure laws, not ban political advertising/speech.
Still, it’s not entirely surprising to find the Chron pushing for bans on political speech for others and special privileges for professional journalists. Political speech is apparently much more important for those editorial idealists who have ascended from the cave than for others.
