Three cheers for the 527s Gregory Fossedal August 17, 2004 Copyright © United Press International WASHINGTON, DC -- Warning: There's a new consensus among the political chattering class. Time for Americans to move our conventional wisdom alert level up to a very reddish orange. The chairmen of both major political parties; President Bush; Senators Kerry and McCain; and journalists from Chris Matthews to David Broder are all generally agreed: The independent "527" committees, which have been airing ads beyond the control of professional office-seekers, and issues deemed unrespectable by the mainstream press, are a bad thing. They should be regulated, ignored, or, at best, drummed off the political stage. When this many aristocrats agree that something is undermining democracy, there must be some good in it. The last time America's political cogniscenti were in this kind of unison, they were busily agreeing that California's gubernetorial recall election was a dangerous and ridiculous exercise. By way of background, the 527 committees are those independent groups that have been publishing books, making protests, and above all, airing television and radio commercials, on political issues throughout 2003 and 2004. On one side, salient examples include Moveon.org and the Media Fund, which have been attacking President Bush's policies -- and, really, his personal honesty and competence -- for more than a year. On the other, such groups as SwiftBoat Veterans for Truth have questioned Senator Kerry's service record. Give that man an award: Bradley Smith and the FEC have defended the free speech rights of Americans where they count the most, in political debate, with courage, patience, and grace. Provided they don't directly endorse candidates, these groups are able to spend money during the campaign without falling afoul of federal campaign spending and contribution limits established in 1974 and tightened by McCain-Feingold in 2002. They've attracted interest and energy form a lot of non-professional, grass-roots zealouts, of the sort who supported Howard Dean in 2003 and Pat Buchanan or Ralph Nader in 2000. But they also have their share of large donors, from George Soros to Robert Perry. The aristocracy's objection to all the counter-claims and heated debate is at once procedural, and substantive. Procedurally, critics say the groups benefit from a "loophole" in the campaign financing law. Well, yes, there is a loophole -- it's called the First Amendment. In any case, it's not true that the unregulated status of the 527s results from circumvention or abuse of an inadvertant oversight. This feature was discussed during congressional debate. Rather, the 527s and other groups were left out of McCain-Feingold because the legislation's supporters were afraid that if they weren't, the whole law would be overturned by the Supreme Court. Substantively, detractors say the groups are making the political discussion nasty, and, unlike campaign ads by the candidates, don't leave anyone accountable for spreading whatever truths or falsehoods they put on the airwaves. As for nastiness, well, there are a lot of tough issues out there. Many Americans believe the war in Iraq was an act of gross imprudence, if not an outright act of dishonesty. Many others believe and say that John Kerry systematically overstated his heroism in Vietnam, and then betrayed his fellow veterans, and the country, in accusing America of war crimes and atrocities on his return. These issues aren't created by 527 groups; they exist. Evidently, neither the candidates nor the press, left to their own devices, is giving them the kind of discussion -- still less, as Fred Barnes notes, agrressive reporting -- that many Americans wish to see. So these private citizens are putting their own money and time on the line. The accountability issue is an illusion. Does the New York Times publish a list of its advertising revenues next to every op-ed? Maybe it should. But its hardly necessary. The Times takes responsibility for its editorials, just as the 527s to not anomymously publish ads. Still, the fury and fire leads well-meaning elitists, people who are smarter than you and me, to worry that political ads will mislead what Chris Matthews calls the "bonehead" of the electorate. The 527s, in this view, need "some kind of ombudsman," comments Ron Reagan Jr. Once again, though, the proposed remedy is already available. One such ombudsman is the free press. Yet another is the groups themselves. When not bemoaning the involvement of these unregulated groups in the political process, unregulated journalists like Reagan, Matthews, David Broder, and others are usually bemoaning the lack of discussion on the issues. They're right, because their own broadcasts and newspaper columsn tend to focus relentlessly on the horse-race aspects of elections. In fact, the press should and can prompt discussion and, to some extent, act as a filter and an ombudsman. Some of the best political coverage this year consists of the regular dissection job done on ads all over the internet and even in a few major newspapers. All of this leads to yet another, macro complaint -- that all this confusion and heat and bluster is somehow unseemly, and the money being spent, excessive. By most estimates, the amount of money spend on the presidential campaign this year will reach $1 billion. Well, the United States is spending more than that every week in Iraq -- or, if you prefer, on Social Security benefits. The total amount of $1 billion, if anything, is grossly insufficent. If a zillionaire here and there wants to contribute a substantial chunk of that, or some actor or musician wants to spout off with their opinions, what is the harm? This week, the 527 pheonomenon reaches a new level, as Moveon.org is placing an ad responding fo the claims of the Swiftboat veterans. This is free speech and political activism at its finest. Given that Americas political regulators don't trust the voters to make their own laws directly -- as they do in better-governed Switzerland -- it is all the more reason to at least let them have free and unfettered access to donate time and money trying to at least influence the solons. Not only should the 527s and their supporters not be decried. They should receive a special award for statesmanship -- for which they are hereby nominated. Voters of left right and center -- citizens -- should give three cheers to Robert Perry and George Soros, two capitalists who are putting their money on the line for democracy. Honorable mention goes to Senator Mitch McConnell, an early opponent of the effort to restrict speech; to Bradley Smith and the Federal Election Commission, for wisely (so far) declining to join the anti-free-speech crusade; and to the authors of last year's California recall effort. Three cheers, as well, for Howard Dean and the bloggers and Ross Perot and Matt Drudge; for the Media Fund and the Wisconsin Right to Life Committee; for Nader for President and the Libertarian Party and former Senator Mike Gravel; and all the other issue nerds, zealouts, and downright kooks out there. Americans should not only grudgingly support their "right to speak," but celebrate them. These men and women are encouraging -- nay, forcing -- America's political elites to debate issues that might not otherwise be aired and discussed. Without these folks, the debate would be more poor, and this year's election mandate -- whoever wins -- less decisive. Gregory Fossedal is a senior fellow at the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution and the author of "Direct Democracy in Switzerland" and "The Democratic Imperative." His opinions are entirely his own and not necessarily those of UPI or AdTI.