The New York Times today runs two editorials about free speech. The first, headlined "Mr. Lazio's Refund," expresses support for the restrictions that the two candidates for U.S. Senate from New York, Hillary Clinton and Rep. Rick Lazio, have placed on groups such as the Sierra Club and the National Rifle Association. Without these restrictions, such groups might buy television commercials expressing opinions about political issues and about the records of the candidates. But because of these restrictions, the voices of these groups are silenced. The Times says that these voluntary, candidate-imposed restrictions on free speech are good, and the Times even has called for laws that would go further and mandate a silencing, or at the least a quieting, of the voices of these groups and the political parties. "The clear winners here are the voters and the political system as a whole," The Times writes in its editorial. "Although it is no substitute for the sort of campaign finance reform legislation that both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Lazio have pledged to support if elected to the Senate, their agreement is nonetheless an important symbol that candidates are beginning to respond to the public's hunger for clean campaigns." In the view of the Times, apparently, there is something not quite "clean" about individuals -- whether they are members of the Sierra Club, a labor union, the Christian Coalition or the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League -- getting together and buying ads that express their political views.
What's breathtaking is that on the same page, in the same column, is an editorial headlined "In Defense of Free Speech." This editorial defends on free-speech grounds the right of the poor to have taxpayer-funded lawyers sue to overturn welfare-reform laws. This Times editorial quotes Justice David Souter as having "suggested that by silencing disagreement with government policy, Congress had struck at 'the molten core' of the First Amendment." This editorial goes on to say, "Congress trampled on free speech and the principle of equal justice under the law when it sought to muzzle Legal Services lawyers, and the court's ultimate ruling should mince no words in saying so."
Put these two editorials together, and the position that emerges is a strange one: A defense of free speech, by the Times' interpretation, requires that Congress pay the bill for a legal challenge to the welfare-reform law the Congress itself passed. But it also requires that the Congress place restrictions, or even bans, on privately funded television advertisements about political issues that might influence an election. It's hard to construct a logical basis related to free speech that would support both these stances at once. It's enough to make one think that what is really driving the opinion of the Times, in both instances, is not a concern for free speech, but some other political agenda. For instance, both of the Times positions are consistent with a desire to expand the role of the federal government. The campaign finance restrictions would expand the power of the federal bureaucracy, the Federal Election Commission, that monitors and regulates political speech. The Times' desired outcome in the debate over taxpayer-funded anti-welfare-reform lawyers would expand the role of another government-funded bureaucracy, the Legal Services Corporation, and it could also lead to a rollback of welfare reform and, with that, an expansion of the government welfare-providing bureaucracy.