When the Senate passed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill earlier this month, you could almost hear the roar of approval from the editorial boards of the nation's newspapers. While polls show that campaign finance reform has never been a major concern among average Americans, the issue has consumed column inch after column inch on editorial pages. Some papers, notably The New York Times , have waged a crusade on behalf of McCain-Feingold. Critics of the legislation denounce it as an unacceptable intrusion on the First Amendment, but most editorialists have been unmoved by those concerns.
Newspapers are usually staunch defenders of free speech rights.
But, in this debate, most newspapers have turned aside the objections of free speech advocates like the ACLU and sided instead with those who favor greater government regulation of political fund-raising and advertising. The evil, they say, is the millions of dollars in soft money donations that flow to the political parties. Various editorials have also attacked interest groups for running ads critical or supportive of candidates. In the 60 days before a general election and the 30 days before a primary, corporations, labor unions and certain interest groups would be prohibited from running radio, TV or cable ads that mention a candidate for federal office. Proponents say that part of the law would keep special interests from carrying out underhanded attacks on candidates.