Political ambition makes for strange bedfellows. Last week, the House Freedom Caucus and many of its allies in the conservative movement joined Common Cause, Public Citizen, and more than 100 House Democrats in opposition to a policy rider in the omnibus budget bill that would eliminate regulations that restrict campaign coordination between political parties and candidates.
This proposed policy rider is an eminently sensible amendment that would accomplish a longstanding conservative goal. Most Americans probably already think that the political parties and their candidates coordinate their campaign strategies and spending. Even those who constantly complain about the amounts spent on campaigns have little to worry about: The size of contributions to parties is already limited, and parties are already allowed to spend as much as they want independently of their candidates, so this proposal will not allow more money into the political process.
What it does do is put an end to the stupid policy of forcing parties to campaign independently of their own candidates. And by doing that, it increases accountability and transparency.
Some conservatives, however, suddenly want to stifle the parties. Because conservative candidates are often at odds with the Republican-party leadership, they often rely on help from PACs and 501(c)(4) nonprofits. If the party can more easily spend funds in coordination with its candidates, but other groups cannot, these conservatives fear that they’ll be at a disadvantage in intra-party battles.
The conservatives opposition to the party-expenditure provision, however, is both foolish and unprincipled.
It’s foolish because the fear is simply unfounded. Currently, parties are limited to just $5,000 in combined contributions and coordinated spending in the primaries. The current proposal doesn’t change that. It removes party spending limits only in the general election — after the primaries have decided the nominee. In short, this proposal does nothing to help “the establishment” during the GOP’s internal battles.
But worse, opposition is thoroughly unprincipled. The Conservative Action Project (CAP), for example, stated the reason for its opposition with remarkable frankness. After paying lip service to the idea that “political contribution is a form of free speech, which is protected by our Constitution and should not be limited,” CAP justified its opposition by arguing that “the McConnell rider provides preferential treatment to the Washington establishment, and subordinates the voices of those who contribute to other multi-candidate organizations.” In conclusion, said CAP, “the Congress should not include this rider.”
In other words, they might have said: “We fear that this would be bad for us in our war against the party establishment.” Where’s the constitutional principle in that? Presumably, if such limits did not exist, CAP would not propose enacting them in order to kneecap the party establishment. But what is the difference between that and opposing repeal of the law in order to kneecap the establishment?
If the Freedom Caucus will sell out its First Amendment principles for perceived short-term political gain, are its members any different from the establishment they vowed to replace?
Of course, campaign-finance laws are regularly used for short-term political gain, so in this, the CAP and the Freedom Caucus are not doing anything that others don’t do. But conservatives have held themselves out as being better than that. The Freedom Caucus mission statement, for example, says that it exists to promote “limited government, the Constitution, and the rule of law, and policies that promote the liberty, safety, and prosperity of all Americans.” It says nothing about sacrificing limited government and liberty for short-term political gain.
The conservative opposition doesn’t even make sense as a tactical matter. Conservatives are not taking this position in the hope that opposing this rider will produce legislation that deregulates further. Quite the contrary, there is no political support for removing campaign-coordination rules pertaining to grassroots groups. When it comes to reforms that would strengthen protections of political speech, everyone in D.C. understands that it is this bit of legislation — the policy rider in the omnibus bill — or nothing.
If the Freedom Caucus will sell out its First Amendment principles for perceived short-term political gain, are its members any different from the establishment they vowed to replace? Can we trust them to hang tough on the Second Amendment when political advantage beckons? On spending? On anything?
The nearly irresistible temptation to use campaign-finance laws to handicap one’s political rivals is a major reason that campaign-finance laws are terrible policy, and they show why the First Amendment was intended to prevent Congress from ever passing laws to limit political speech. At least that’s what principled conservatives used to argue. We’ll soon discover where the Freedom Caucus — or is it now the so-called Freedom Caucus? — stands.
— Bradley A. Smith is chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics. He previously served as chairman of the Federal Election Commission.