precepts at claremont.org wrote:
> The Claremont Institute--PRECEPTS | | July 5, 2001
> Visit <http://www.claremont.org> | | No. 287
>
> Claremont Institute Precepts: Not Progress, But
> Progressivism
> By Thomas Krannawitter and Ben Boychuk
>
> The Supreme Court dealt another blow to free-speech rights
> late last month, ruling 5-to-4 in the case of
> FederalElection Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal
> Campaign Commision that the government may regulate how
> much money a state political party spends in support of its
> own political candidates. Members of the House of
> Representatives, who will take up debate on its version of
> McCain-Feingold next week, hailed the ruling.
>
> On the question of how political campaigns are funded
> today, many Republicans and Democrats -- and a majority of
> the Supreme Court -- seem to agree on two things: First,
> money equals corruption. Second, because there is an awful
> lot of money in politics today, our politics must be
> awfully corrupt. That's why they say government should
> further regulate how Americans speak and spend their
> money.
>
> Of course, it is only political speech that is to be
> curbed. Licentious speech, including profanity and sexual
> exhibitionism, enjoys unprecedented freedom. As Justice
> Clarence Thomas remarked in his dissenting opinion to last
> week's decision, "I remain baffled that this Court has
> extended the most generous First Amendment safeguards to
> filing lawsuits, wearing profane jackets, and exhibiting
> drive-in movies with nudity, but has offered only tepid
> protection to the core speech and associational rights that
> the Founders sought to defend."
>
> So why all the excitement on Capitol Hill for campaign
> finance reform, when in the end it simply limits the most
> important kind of speech, political speech? And why is it
> that for all the sanctimonious talk about "getting special
> interests out of politics," no one mentions the interest
> that will benefit most from increased campaign finance
> regulation – government itself?
>
> The answer is Progressivism, a radical philosophy that
> swept across America a century ago. Regulating how
> Americans participate in politics is just one of its
> legacies.
>
> The brainchild of Darwinian thinkers and political leaders
> such as Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, John Dewey, and
> Herbert Croly, Progressivism sought to replace limited,
> constitutional government by consent with unlimited,
> bureaucratic government. Government-by-bureaucratic-fiat
> was regarded as an innovative government reform, because
> professional bureaucrats would be impartial in doling out
> justice. Unlike elected, partisan officials, professional
> bureaucrats would not be beholden to "special interests,"
> or corrupted by money in politics. Sound familiar?
>
> The one thing that has stood in the way of Progressive
> politics is the United States Constitution. The American
> Founders understood that, historically, governments more
> often than not have been the usurper of liberties. Thus
> they believed it important to protect individual rights by
> explicitly limiting the power of government in a written
> constitution.
>
> For the Progressives, however, this is a problem. Limited
> government can neither regulate our lives nor redistribute
> our wealth in the name of "social justice." As Woodrow
> Wilson put it, the American Constitution is little more
> than "political witchcraft" from the past, and ought to be
> discarded so that we can get on with the Progressive
> project of building a "national state."
>
> Progressivism made great strides with the stewardship of
> Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. The New Deal and
> the Great Society were the means of enacting -- and
> enshrining -- many of the regulatory schemes that Wilson
> and the original Progressives only dreamed of.
>
> Naturally, as government increasingly regulates how
> Americans do their business, Americans want to influence
> those regulations. And there is the rub.
>
> Citizens respond to the over-regulation of Progressive
> government by speaking out and spending money to influence
> Progressive politics. Government, in turn, now says it
> needs to restrict how Americans engage in politics, further
> regulating our lives, because there is too much money in
> politics. But would all this money be spent on politics if
> government did not regulate and control so much of our
> lives?
>
> It's no coincidence that every major campaign reform law in
> American history has followed a surge in the growth of
> government regulation. The Tillman Act of 1907 followed
> the Progressive Movement; the Hatch Act of 1939 followed
> the New Deal; and the Federal Election Campaign Act of
> 1971, and the 1974 FECA amendments -- the most sweeping
> attempt yet to implement government control over campaign
> finance -- followed the Great Society.
>
> And so the Progressive cycle continues.
>
> In the end, campaign finance reform is nothing more than a
> cover for increasing the size and scope of the federal
> government, a government that already exercises too much
> unconstitutional power over its citizens.
> Whether "reformers" identify themselves as Democrats or
> Republicans is unimportant.
>
> They are above all Progressives, and they are enemies of
> what is left of constitutional government in America.
>
> Thomas Krannawitter is Director of Academic Programs at the
> Claremont Institute.
>
> Ben Boychuk is Managing Editor of The Claremont Review of
> Books.
>
> An abridged version of this article appeared in the
> Los Angeles Times on Wednesday, July 4.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Copyright (c) 2001 The Claremont Institute
>
> To subscribe to Precepts, go to: http://www.claremont.org/1_precepts.cfm , or e-mail us at info at claremont.org .
> To be removed from this list, go to : http://www.claremont.org/remove_public.cfm , or e-mail us at info at claremont.org .
> For general correspondence or additional information about the Claremont Institute, e-mail : info at claremont.org , or visit our website at : http://www.claremont.org .
> Changing your e-mail address? Please let us know at : info at claremont.org .
> For press inquiries, contact Nazalee Topalian at topalian at msn.com or (202) 265-9010.
> Author and Claremont Institute attribution are required if used for publication. Please contact Topalian at msn.com for Tear Sheet information.
>
> The mission of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship
> and Political Philosophy is to restore the principles of the American
> Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life.
>
> The Claremont Institute | 250 West First Street | Suite 330 | Claremont,
> CA 91711 | Phone (909) 621-6825 | Fax (909) 626-8724