1 00:00:00,500 --> 00:00:07,360 In my many years in Washington, the most alarming development has been advertised under the soothing title of 2 00:00:07,600 --> 00:00:09,540 "campaign finance reform." 3 00:00:10,020 --> 00:00:12,360 We Americans are disposed to think that the 4 00:00:12,370 --> 00:00:19,289 word "reform" is a synonym for "improvement." But what is called "campaign finance reform" 5 00:00:19,289 --> 00:00:24,920 is nothing less than a frontal assault on the first -- the most fundamental -- of our 6 00:00:24,920 --> 00:00:29,840 freedoms: The freedom to speak our minds and to participate in politics. 7 00:00:30,440 --> 00:00:37,040 This assult is always conducted stealthily, by people who pretend that they only want to regulate money, 8 00:00:37,050 --> 00:00:43,739 not speech. They say they are only concerned about the quantity of money in politics. 9 00:00:43,739 --> 00:00:50,589 After the 2012 Romney and Obama campaigns spent, combined, $2 billion dollars, the usual 10 00:00:50,589 --> 00:00:56,089 cry was heard from reformers. They said: "There is too much money in politics." Forget the 11 00:00:56,240 --> 00:01:02,260 Forget the fact that Americans spend $2 billion every spring just on Easter candy. 12 00:01:02,269 --> 00:01:07,980 But you must remember this: People who say there is "too much money in politics" are 13 00:01:07,980 --> 00:01:11,560 necessarily saying three very sinister things. 14 00:01:12,380 --> 00:01:16,800 First, they are saying there is too much political speech; 15 00:01:16,800 --> 00:01:22,340 second, they are saying that they know just the right amount of political speech; 16 00:01:22,360 --> 00:01:30,140 and third, they are saying that government should enforce the limits they want on the amount of political speech. 17 00:01:30,140 --> 00:01:35,100 That is, the government should regulate speech about the government. 18 00:01:36,040 --> 00:01:40,720 Over the last few decades, reformers have chipped away at the First Amendment guarantee 19 00:01:40,720 --> 00:01:46,860 of free speech. They've done it with various and sundry campaign finance laws such as limiting 20 00:01:46,860 --> 00:01:52,380 the amount of money an individual can give to a candidate. But they're no longer satisfied 21 00:01:52,380 --> 00:01:58,870 with merely chipping away at the First Amendment. Now they want to take a sledgehammer to it. 22 00:01:58,870 --> 00:02:05,210 They admit that what they want -- to restrict free speech -- is incompatible with the Constitution. 23 00:02:05,210 --> 00:02:12,210 So, for the first time in American history, reformers calling themselves Progressives 24 00:02:12,379 --> 00:02:18,519 are proposing to change the First Amendment in order to empower Congress to decide the 25 00:02:18,520 --> 00:02:22,300 quantity, content and timing of political speech 26 00:02:22,300 --> 00:02:26,640 And who would benefit from the speech-restricting rules Congress would write? 27 00:02:26,640 --> 00:02:34,520 Well, we know this: every campaign finance law that ever has existed, or ever will exist 28 00:02:34,520 --> 00:02:38,860 has been or will be, written by incumbent legislators. 29 00:02:39,040 --> 00:02:45,920 That is, all laws regulating campaigns will favor the re-election of incumbents. 30 00:02:46,140 --> 00:02:51,720 Incumbents have enormous electoral advantages stemming from their perquisites of office: 31 00:02:51,730 --> 00:02:58,370 name recognition, a catalogue of favors done for constituents, and so on. Hence incumbents 32 00:02:58,370 --> 00:03:04,680 generally do not need to spend as much money as their challengers must spend. Hence incumbents 33 00:03:04,680 --> 00:03:08,810 write laws making fundraising more difficult. 34 00:03:08,810 --> 00:03:13,499 Those who advocate restricting how much money we can contribute to candidates, or how much 35 00:03:13,499 --> 00:03:19,969 money candidates can spend on campaigns, always say the same thing. They say, "We are only 36 00:03:19,969 --> 00:03:23,499 restricting money, and money is not speech." 37 00:03:23,499 --> 00:03:29,719 To see how silly this distinction is, consider the following: The New York Times constantly 38 00:03:29,719 --> 00:03:35,629 says that money is not speech and therefore the spending of money can be restricted without 39 00:03:35,629 --> 00:03:41,829 restricting freedom of speech. But suppose conservatives controlled Congress and said 40 00:03:41,829 --> 00:03:46,919 to the New York Times: We of course would never restrict the freedom of the Times to 41 00:03:46,919 --> 00:03:53,019 practice journalism -- Heaven forbid! We are only going to restrict the amount of money 42 00:03:53,019 --> 00:03:57,849 the Times can spend on gathering the news and distributing its newspapers -- the amount 43 00:03:57,849 --> 00:04:04,529 it can spend on journalists, paper, ink, printing presses, delivery trucks, advertisements, 44 00:04:04,529 --> 00:04:05,709 and so on. 45 00:04:05,709 --> 00:04:12,059 Do you think the New York Times would be content with this? Would the Times say: That is fine, 46 00:04:12,059 --> 00:04:16,419 because you are only regulating our right to spend money, not our right to speak. 47 00:04:16,420 --> 00:04:20,180 No, the Times would strenuously object. 48 00:04:20,180 --> 00:04:25,300 It would say: Money is indispensable for making our speech effective. 49 00:04:25,300 --> 00:04:28,980 That is true, and not just for the Times. 50 00:04:29,040 --> 00:04:35,780 Without ample money, no congressional candidate can speak to an entire congressional district; 51 00:04:35,780 --> 00:04:41,730 and no Senate candidate can communicate to an entire state; and no presidential candidate 52 00:04:41,730 --> 00:04:46,170 can make his or her case to our continental nation. 53 00:04:46,600 --> 00:04:52,060 Contributing to candidates is one of the most common forms of political participation. 54 00:04:52,180 --> 00:04:57,100 So restricting campaign contributions reduces participation. 55 00:04:57,640 --> 00:05:04,000 The only constitutional way to reduce the amount of money invested in politics is to 56 00:05:04,000 --> 00:05:08,360 reduce the role of politics in the distribution of money. 57 00:05:08,580 --> 00:05:17,400 If government were not so big, if it were not so busy allocating wealth and opportunity to the politically well-connected, 58 00:05:17,400 --> 00:05:23,400 then politics would be less important in our lives, and less money would be spent on it. 59 00:05:23,820 --> 00:05:29,890 So the next time someone says we should make government even bigger by giving it the power 60 00:05:29,890 --> 00:05:36,890 to regulate speech, tell that person that what we really need is more speech advocating 61 00:05:36,970 --> 00:05:39,270 less government. 62 00:05:39,270 --> 00:05:41,550 I'm George Will for Prager University.