Campaign-Finance Wynn
Black Democrats don’t like McCain-Feingold.

By NR’s John J. Miller & Ramesh Ponnuru
June 22, 2001 3:00 p.m.

onsidering the extent to which everything in politics is racialized, it's surprising the media hasn't found a racial angle to campaign-finance reform. Maybe the liberal press isn't trying hard enough, because there really is one: A surprising number of black officeholders are on the side of Sen. Mitch McConnell. Then again, maybe that's why we haven't heard more about it.

Just yesterday, Rep. Albert Wynn (D., Md.), who heads the campaign-finance task force of the Congressional Black Caucus, testified before a House panel: "The most popular approach seems to be banning soft money as reflected in the Senate-passed McCain-Feingold bill and the Shays-Meehan proposal in this body. The assumption seems to be that in the absence of the allegedly corrupting influence of soft money, Congress could more effectively address the Patients Bill of Rights, prescription drugs, the California energy crisis, etc. If find this underlying assumption false, naïve, and insulting."

More Wynn: "While the National Rifle Association or Planned Parenthood certainly have the constitutional right and the resources to mobilize voters, I think it would be a great mistake if the national parties did not have access to resources to educate and mobilize voters as well."

Bonus Wynn: "Restrictions on third-party political expressions via broadcast ads during the most critical late stages of a campaign is not only unconstitutional, they deprive voters of vital information at a time when voters are most engaged in election of candidates and consideration of referendums."

The Republican National Committee was so pleased with Wynn's remarks, it put out a press release trumpeting them.

Back from the Dead
The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) "does not oppose" passage of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, according to a release from last week. Last year, the pro-abortion group called the measure, which protects the lives of children born during botched abortions, a ruthless attack on Roe v. Wade. Now it simply says the law isn't necessary, because it is legally redundant. That's just not true, as Ken Connor of the Family Research Council notes: "I was personally involved in a malpractice case where an abortionist who attended the birth of a low-weight baby in a hospital directed the hospital staff not to suction the baby or do anything for her until she died. Hours later, when the hospital shift changed, another staff, mortified at the abandonment, summoned a physician who administered CPR and saved the life of the child. The child suffered cerebral palsy because of oxygen deprivation resulting from the failure of the first doctor to suction the child, but lives a meaningful and productive life."

NARAL's flip-flop is a small sign of pro-life progress.