THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, August 4, 1996 TAG: 9608030011
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J4 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: 71 lines
The Federal Election Commission is suing the Christian Coalition, charging that the 45 million voter guides it distributes at election time constitute ``in-kind contributions'' to conservative candidates and must be reported to the government.
The FEC is wrong. Anyone familiar with the Christian Coalition voter guides knows that each consists simply of a short list of hot-button conservative issues and check marks indicating where the candidates stand on those.
A liberal reading a guide would come away with a very different notion of whom to vote for than would a conservative.
The guides do not urge voters to vote for or to defeat specific candidates. It is assumed that the socially conservative voters who generally receive the guides at their churches will select the candidate whose views most closely mirror their own - almost invariably a Republican.
We have a word for that: democracy.
If the FEC prevails in this suit, fines could be levied against the Chesapeake-based organization founded by Pat Robertson after his failed bid for the presidency. The Christian Coalition could be ordered to reconstitute itself as a political action committee and could be banned from distributing voter guides in this year's elections.
Critics of the Christian Coalition are rejoicing over the suit, but they would be wise to remember that the next ox gored could be theirs.
If the FEC prevails, what's next? Labor unions - which spend millions of dollars of dues money (not PAC money) on ``issue advocacy'' and outright endorsements - ought to be watching this case closely. They would be wise to file friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of the coalition.
Also high on the FEC's hit list might be environmental groups like the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society and the National Organization for Women - which triumphed in a similar FEC suit in 1989.
For the past 20 years, the FEC has doggedly tried to bring issue advocacy groups under its regulatory control. The FEC has a consistent losing record. You'd think it would take a hint.
The crux of this case is free speech. The question before the federal court is whether the Christian Coalition has a right to distribute voter guides showing how opposing candidates stand on a few key issues important to conservative voters.
The government ought not to be in the business of limiting the speech of advocacy groups. The folks at the FEC need to get out their dusty copies of the U.S. Constitution and read the First Amendment. Then they should read it again.
We agree that there needs to be a line in campaigning which cannot be crossed by corporations. The courts have ruled that the line is drawn at the outright endorsement of candidates or a call to defeat politicians. The Christian Coalition, advised, no doubt, by its band of smart lawyers has meticulously avoided candidate endorsement.
The FEC, however, alleges the Christian Coalition has crossed that line. Certainly Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed have cozy relationships with the Republican Party. They are Americans; that is their right. If the FEC can show that the Christian Coalition acted as a covert arm of the Republican Party by outwitting government regulations through subterfuge, then the Coalition ought to lose. But the FEC has a lousy record on such cases, and it is unlikely to win this time.
The law seems inadequately drawn. As a result, lawsuit after lawsuit is filed by the FEC. Until legislators tackle the question of campaign-finance reform and pass clear, concise laws, the FEC will continue its relentless pursuit of organizations and the courts will continue to rule against it.
There is no question that the American political scene is a swamp of soft money. Reform is needed.
But more important than campaign reform is the fundamental right of all Americans to free speech. It is a most precious part of our democracy. Every time a government agency tries to muzzle groups whose mission is to advocate a point of view, the spirit of the First Amendment is violated. by CNB