An editorial and a news article in today's New York Times come out for banning the Republican National Committee from taking out ads backing the Republican candidate for governor of New Jersey. The editorial calls a decision by New Jersey election officials to allow the spending "disheartening." A news story that is about as opinionated as the editorial claims the ruling "stunned campaign-finance experts" and that it "drew harsh criticism today." Neither the editorial nor the news article mentions the First Amendment to the Constitution, which, combined with the 14th Amendment, makes it clearly unconstitutional to prevent the Republicans, or anyone else, for that matter, from airing political campaign ads. It would be an abridgement of the freedom of speech. This is notwithstanding all the details about express advocacy versus issue advocacy and Buckley v. Valeo and coordination. They are beside the point. As a spokesman for the Republican National Committee points out in the penultimate paragraph of the Times news article, the AFL-CIO and the Sierra Club have every right to advertise, too. In the U.S. Senate race in New York, the Times wanted to ban everyone -- the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, the Sierra Club, the National Rifle Association -- from advertising. That way, the Times' voice and influence, which is unregulated and protected by the same First Amendment that protects the other interest groups -- would be magnified, while the other voices would be silenced. The Times now apparently wants the same rules to apply to the governor's race in New Jersey. While the Times news article claims that campaign-finance "experts" were "stunned," the article doesn't bother checking in with a single free-speech expert, like the ones at the American Civil Liberties Union or like law professors Bradley A. Smith and Joel Gora. They wouldn't be "stunned," because they, unlike the Times and its "experts," understand the Constitution. And the Constitution in this case isn't just an old piece of paper; it actually makes sense. More speech is better. It makes for a healthier debate, a more informed electorate, a more vigorous airing of the issues. It prevents arbitrary line-drawing by government authorities deciding who can speak during an election and who can't. It's just weird that the Times, whose definition of "free speech" extends to required government subsidies for bad art at the Brooklyn Museum, doesn't think that free speech should apply to political parties in elections.
Wasted: A headline in the international section of today's New York Times says, "Brunei Prince's Spree That Wasted $15 Billion." According to the news article, the money was used to buy things like "crystal chandeliers," "gold-trimmed Jacuzzis," "fine china" and "grand pianos." Funny the way the article asserting the prince "wasted" his money on grand pianos appears just above an advertisement in the Times from Steinway & Sons, which reads, "If you've dreamed of owning one of the world's finest pianos, don't miss this extraordinary two-day event." Indeed, many of the products the prince "wasted" his money on are advertised each day in the pages of the New York Times. Presumably, the prince derived some enjoyment from his spending. You could say the prince "wasted" the money, or you could say he consumed it, or spent it, or enjoyed it. The Times may be right, and the prince should have donated the entire $15 billion to the Times neediest cases fund, lived in a basement studio apartment and taken the subway to work. But asserting that the money was "wasted" is an odd judgment for the Times, of all papers, to make in a headline over a news story. The same article refers to "the London jeweler Aspreys." While the jeweler may be known informally as Aspreys, the official name is Asprey & Garrard.
Race Neutral: The metro section of today's New York Times carries a jailhouse interview with the Rev. Al Sharpton. The article says Rev. Sharpton "would no longer insist" that mayoral candidate Fernando Ferrer endorse "a black candidate for city comptroller" and Norman Siegel, the former executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, for public advocate. The Times never explains why the race of the comptroller candidate is worth mentioning but Mr. Siegel's race isn't. Rev. Sharpton is on record, for what little it is worth, denying that race had been a factor in the endorsements that he had been insisting on. It looks like the Times is trying to make an issue of the race of the comptroller candidate.
Best of the Rest: Notable New York Times critiques recently published elsewhere: Robert Satloff in the New Republic on the Times's Israel coverage; Mickey Kaus in Slate on the Times's welfare reform coverage and tendency to waddle in "late again"; and O'Dwyer's PR Daily on how a recent Times op-ed on asthma neglected to disclose its author's ties to a drug company.