THE PEOPLE VS. TOM DASCHLE Congressional hearings have begun on a Democratic proposal to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to curb political speech by limiting spending by persons and groups not associated with a campaign. The intent is to reverse a 1976 Supreme Court ruling (Buckley v. Valeo) that such spending limits unconstitutionally restrict the right to express political preferences. The Court noted, correctly, that spending curbs limit access to "indispensable instruments of effective political speech" such as TV, radio and newspaper advertising. In effect, the Court held such spending is speech and cannot be prohibited. Sen. Tom Daschle, Democratic minority leader, says the Court was wrong, that spending is not speech. But in fact, almost no speech of the kind that reaches the public happens without money being spent. The court has said nude dancing is speech and burning the flag is speech. But when the court says actual speech is speech, the Democrats say it's not fair. Daschle cites inequalities in the ability of people to communicate by spending money. And there are inequalities. Ross Perot can buy 30 minute infomercials on network TV while someone else struggles to print and mail a single page flier to his congressional district. Daschle says this is unfair and his solution is to silence them both. That's equality. It's also a lot of other things we've never associated with America. The point was made even more explicitly by House minority leader Rep. Dick Gephardt who said we must choose between free speech and a "healthy democracy." As he put it, "We can't have both." If inequality of resources is an evil bad enough to justify abolishing the First Amendment, what do we do about the disparity between the power of a national TV network, or a national newspaper such as the New York Times compared to more modest publications -- like the Texas Journal, for instance. The Times certainly spends money to publish. Does Daschle's amendment allow Congress to regulate a newspaper's editorial endorsements on that grounds? In any event, Daschle's basic premise -- that any constitutional right that can't be enjoyed equally by everyone ought to be abolished -- is insane and dangerous. What about the right to own property? Clearly, some people are in a position to own more than others. Some churches are wealthier and better able to propagate their message than others. And, of course, Daschle's amendment doesn't address the greatest disparity of all -- the overwhelming ability of an incumbent to capture the eye and ear of the public as opposed to a challenger or a critic. Nor does it touch the real source of corruption -- the awesome power the government holds over industries and business. The crowning irony is that Daschle made this outrageous suggestion in a speech to the National Press Club.
By BOB WARD
Editor of the Texas Journal