Sarah Eskreis-Winkler: Through the courts, abridging freedom of speech in the election process

Being a Supreme Court justice is a pretty good job. Aside from the privilege of serving one's country, the intellectually challenging work and the assurance of a place in the footnotes of history, the hours are also really nice. In session for most of the fall and spring, the High Court enjoys a lengthy break each time the earth nears the sun.

So the decision to hold oral arguments last Monday -- cutting short the summer recess -- was notable. The Supreme Court heard arguments on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, McConnell v. FEC, in an effort to sort things out before the primary elections early next year.

The issue at hand is whether political speech should be restrained in an attempt to rid the election process of corruption. Many provisions of the legislation have aroused constitutional concerns. Why? Because the law curbs the very political speech that the First Amendment was designed to protect.

The law, for example, includes new regulations on issue ads: nonprofit organizations and other corporations are prohibited from running commercials (dubbed "electioneering communications") that "refer to" a candidate 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. These ads have bothered many congressmen because of their negative or cynical nature. BCRA silences this annoyance.

Unbelievable. How can a country that prides itself on the principle of free speech stop members of certain groups from voicing their opinions during the election season?

Sure, the alleged purpose of campaign finance reform sounds like a noble cause, but drafting legislation censuring political speech is not an acceptable remedy. Curbing or filtering the quantity or substance of information and publicity during the campaign season is antithetical to the free election. Furthermore, it's not clear the legislation would even have the intended effect.

Hey, I find all those campaign ads around election time to be a nuisance. But they do expose more people to the political campaign. And to suppress interest groups like the Sierra Club or the NRA from shedding light on candidate platforms in front of a national audience would injure voter awareness and decrease already low voter turnout.

Upon closer inspection, campaign finance reform is a scheme to benefit the incumbent. By using taxpayer money to fund their mailings, Web sites, staffs and even their travel, congressmen running for office free up their fundraising money for other campaign operations -- like television ads. If the aim was truly to make elections fairer, why didn't McCain and Feingold restrict these benefits during the 60 days before a general election?

What BCRA did limit -- political ads and monetary donations -- inevitably favor those who already have name recognition and media attention. Since incumbents start the campaign with a distinct advantage, any constraints placed upon advertising and fundraising will only hurt the challenger further. Financially reforming the political campaign is less about preventing election corruption and more about securing a stable professional career for elected officials.

Our congressmen have twisted the Constitution to benefit themselves and have disguised it as an effort to advance fair and honest politicking. It should be an affront to us all.

More aggressive reporting is the antidote to the campaign corruption. Quality, in-depth media coverage of candidates during the election season could help form an accurate portrayal of the contestants and the issues. This would counter the negative influence some attribute to "electioneering communications."

All sorts of ads should be allowed to air, more than ever, during the days prior to an election. But for truth to reign, the journalist must keep up with the rising expenditure of candidates and provide accurate information to voters, thus diminishing the incumbent advantage.

The justices of the Supreme Court are under considerable pressure to issue a decision quickly. Despite time constraints, over the next 60 days or so, they'll hear both sides of the case and read numerous amicus briefs from a variety of nonprofit organizations, corporations and individuals. They stubbornly insist on hearing all points of view before making up their mind. Let's hope they decide to let the voters do the same.

Sarah Eskreis-Winkler is a College sophomore from Wynnewood, Pa.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.