A Stitch in Haste

Few if any of the "Netroots," but more than one libertarian, have noted that the besting of Senator Joe Lieberman by Ned Lamont would not have been conceivable, let alone possible, without the latter's vast wealth: Lamont gave at least $4 million to his own campaign, as is his First Amendment right according to (the good half of) Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

But under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (a/k/a McCain-Feingold), which is propped up by (the bad half of) Buckely via McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), and now Randall v. Sorrell, No. 04-1528 (2006), private citizens could only contribute $2,000 to oppose Lamont. And Connecticut's own campaign finance law for state and local office is even more draconian, banning any contributions at all for a large segment of the electorate (the new law does not commence until the 2008 voting cycle, and is already being challenged).

So, to review: Ned Lamont can spent $4 million, or more, to win a primary, plus however much he will spend in the general election. But an ordinary Connecticut citizen cannot spend one-half of one percent of that to oppose him. Just as Michael Bloomberg can spend $70 million to be re-elected Mayor of New York, but I cannot spend one-tenth of one percent of that to oppose him.

That simply cannot be right. It is not a "reasonable balance of competing interests." It is not "preservation of electoral integrity." It is First Amendment schizophrenia.

Not every multi-millionaire or billionaire who seeks to buy an elected office succeeds. But if the McCain-Feingold madness is not scrapped altogether and the simple identity of "money is money" rediscovered, then more and more high offices will simply be up for sale to the highest bidder.

Remind me again how that's a good thing?