Money Talks, But Is Money Speech?

The Supreme Court decision from last week that has probably spawned the most discussion was the one regarding free speech and campaign finance restrictions. I'm not going to get involved in the grist of the decision because, frankly, I don't know about the specifics of it, nor do I care.

Two very different, but informative, discussions can be found on different bloggingheads episodes. Brink Lindsey and Josh Cohen discuss it here, with Josh being pro-reform and Brink being anti-, while Jim Pinkerton and Mark Schmitt (very surprisingly to me, in the second case) both make the case against finance restrictions here.

I actually found Brink's arguments surprisingly convincing, much moreso than anything either Pinkerton or Schmitt had to say. Instinctually, I am pro-campaign finance reform. I hate the importance and influence that the sound bite and the 30-second attack ad have gained in modern-day American politics (a question to any knowledgable Faithful Readers: how do elections in other countries you know about compare on this front?) I think that it's sad that the modern American dialectic encourages the adoption, not of policies which are 'the best', but instead which can be most effectively boiled down to 10 words or less, and discussed with deep, slightly raspy voices while telling you to 'call Senator X and ask him why he doesn't want to put criminals behind bars.'

So, on the face of it, I am for reforms which will reduce the influence these sorts of media can have on the political discourse. But Brink makes a very good point, which I will try to paraphrase here. It's not like you gain your political knowledge and wherewithal in a vacuum, Descartes style (I think, therefore I vote Democrat?) Instead, you get it from, broadly, the media. Whether that's reading my blog, or Yglesias, or The Corner. Or watching NBC Nightly News. Or reading the paper. Or, for that matter, by watching The View. Or, from the commercials which come on during your daytime soaps.

Is it really fair, or right, to restrict some of these forms but not others? It puts an awful lot of trust in the TV news media, say, to restrict what commercials can and cannot be run, but allow Katie Couric's staff to put anything on the air that passes their journalistic muster.

So, reluctantly, I think I'm coming around to the side of maximal openness, but minimal restrictions, on political speech. I definitely want to know if Rupert Murdoch (or George Soros) is sponsoring an interest group whose interests somehow align with his ulterior motives. But if he wants to, so be it. It's not to say that I think this will be an optimal world, but it is part of it. The part which will be much harder, but equally important, is education. I'm not particularly convinced, one way or the other, by 30-second attack ads, because I read about the issues and know the relevant facts. The point is, we have to raise the general level of knowledge such that the ads are less effective. It's the only thing which will really work.

Sadly, it's much harder than just banning the ads. How do we get there? Oh hell, if I actually knew that, I wouldn't be spending so much time writing this blog that almost nobody reads, would I?