The lead editorial in today's New York Times says "Yesterday Senator John McCain estimated that the truly obscene sum of a billion dollars has been spent in this campaign on television ads." The Times finds this "out-of-hand" and says it demonstrates the need for campaign finance reform to put an end to "huge unregulated campaign donations."
But what is "obscene" about political parties and factions spending money to appeal to voters in a democracy? That is what free speech is all about. The Times has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on newsprint and ink for its editorials and news stories praising Al Gore and bashing Ralph Nader and George W. Bush. Why is that spending any less "obscene" than that spent by non-New York Times interest groups attempting to influence voters? Both the Times editorials and the activities of the political parties are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Yet you don't see the Times referring to the "unregulated" press. You see it referring to the free press, which is one of America's great strengths. Somehow, when it comes to non-New York Times free speech, or to donations spent on political commercials, which are free speech, the Times uses the term "unregulated" as opposed to "free," suggesting that there should be some regulation. In fact, donations to political parties are already regulated; they are just not limited. Disclosure is required. Political expenditures by independent groups are unregulated and unlimited, but to regulate or limit such expenditures would be to trample the First Amendment and restrict political speech. Such restrictions would give the editorial page of the Times, which would presumably still be unregulated, even more power than it already has. The New York Times sells about a billion dollars a year worth of advertising for products ranging from perfume to BMWs to luxury condominiums. Is that "obscene"? Why is it obscene for such a sum to be spent on engaging in political discourse rather than on encouraging consumption of consumer goods?
A Threat: Another editorial in today's Times, on the rise of President Chavez of Venezuela, asserts that "the rise of a demagogic leftist leader in Latin America need no longer be considered the threat it was during the cold war." This is almost comical coming from the Times, which, even while the Cold War was raging, never considered any demagogic leftist leaders in Latin America to be threats worth fighting.
Metro Matters: The "Metro Matters" column in today's Times also refers to "the obscene cost of campaigns." But this column manufactures additional nonexistent flaws in the campaign, namely, "the demonization of Muslims" and "the pandering on breast cancer." It's not demonization of Muslims for the press to call Hillary Clinton to account for taking $51,000 from supporters of terrorism. Terrorism is wrong, and the Hamas and Hezbollah groups supported by the Muslims for Mrs. Clinton are enemies of America and of America's ally, Israel. If anything, claiming that such support for terrorism by American Muslims should be overlooked is an example of the soft bigotry of low expectations. What about the Muslims who are courageous enough to condemn terrorism? No one is demonizing them. Then there's the alleged "pandering" on breast cancer. It's not "pandering" to address issues that voters are concerned about. It's democracy. When politicians address issues that the Times is concerned about, like campaign finance "reform" and universal health insurance, the Times doesn't dismiss it as pandering. Why does it qualify as "pandering" if a candidate wants to spend more government money on screening for breast cancer or on research to help find a cure? The column doesn't say. But if the objection is that the attention and proposed spending on breast cancer are disproportionate to attention and spending for other diseases that are more deadly and more common, well, victims of those diseases have every right to form potent political lobbying groups the way that those concerned about breast cancer have.
News Blackout: An article on the front of the business section of today's New York Times considers the plummeting circulation of Sunday newspapers. The article mysteriously omits any reference to the Sunday New York Post, which began in April of 1996 and has grown to a circulation of 365, 276. The Post is omitted even from a chart purporting to show the five newspapers with the largest gains in Sunday circulation. The Sunday New York Post's growth from zero to 365,276 outpaces any of the five newspapers shown in the chart.