This time, dammit, we can't blame John Ashcroft. The latest attack on our civil liberties comes directly from Congress, bolstered by our own Supreme Court, in the form of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law.

The law addresses campaign funding and how those funds are spent. And therefore it addresses our most cherished constitutional amendment, the first one: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...".

And yet, as a conservative friend of mine [yes, I've got one of those] wrote me today, "Congress can pass a law that prevents us from criticizing them? Where's the outrage?"

I've got your outrage right here, Pumpkin.

Seriously, my friend has a point.

Money and Speech

Some people argue that money isn't speech. Technically, they're right. Money is money. However, the reality is that speech costs money. Hell, even my cheesy Web site costs money. And wealthy people have more access to the things money can buy — like newspaper, magazine, and television ads — than people who aren't wealthy. That's why people give money to organizations that represent their political views: power in numbers. If I give money to the ACLU, it's because I want them to pool it with the money from other donors and spend it fighting for the causes I believe in. Sometimes that includes addressing election issues in the media.

Unfortunately, the McCain-Feingold law has created and assigned a new status to certain non-profit organizations, deeming them political committees. Now these organizations, such as the ACLU, NRA, NAACP, and others, will be heavily regulated in election season. They are subject to restrictions on the way that they can spend donations on television ads relating to elections, candidates, and voter issues.

But the law doesn't restrict the way individuals or media outlets can spend their money on the same things. So, for example, as an election approaches, a corporation could buy a television network and then create and run its own ads supporting this candidate and condemning that one. But within 30 days of a primary or within 60 days of a general election, your favorite non-profit advocacy group can't buy an ad on that corporation's network to support its candidate of choice or criticize another candidate unless it creates a new "institutional entity" for that purpose. [More on that in a few moments.]

And your city's Donald Trump can run television ads ripping your favorite candidate to shreds right up to election day. But your favorite non-profit advocacy group can't run an counter-ad. So a single media outlet owned by a corporation and one wealthy individual now have more power to campaign for candidates [or issues] than do organizations that represent potentially thousands upon thousands of voters.