White House Wag: Campaign Finance Challenge

W A S H I N G T O N, April 27 -- When the Senate passed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill earlier this month, you could almost hear the roar of approval from the editorial boards of the nation's newspapers.

While polls show that campaign finance reform has never been a major concern among average Americans, the issue has consumed column inch after column inch on editorial pages. Some papers, notably The New York Times, have waged a crusade on behalf of McCain-Feingold.

Critics of the legislation denounce it as an unacceptable intrusion on the First Amendment, but most editorialists have been unmoved by those concerns. Newspapers are usually staunch defenders of free speech rights. But, in this debate, most newspapers have turned aside the objections of free speech advocates like the ACLU and sided instead with those who favor greater government regulation of political fund-raising and advertising. The evil, they say, is the millions of dollars in soft money donations that flow to the political parties. Various editorials have also attacked interest groups for running ads critical or supportive of candidates.

McCain-Feingold would ban soft money and also go after the so-called sham issue ads. In the 60 days before a general election and the 30 days before a primary, corporations, labor unions and certain interest groups would be prohibited from running radio, TV or cable ads that mention a candidate for federal office. (Political action committees would still be allowed to buy these ads.)

Proponents say that part of the law would keep special interests from carrying out underhanded attacks on candidates. But, as it's written, the bill would also make it a crime for a company to run an ad asking the president or a member of Congress for help during those time windows.The proposed law would apply only to TV, radio and cable advertising. As I wrote a previous column looking at the issue-ad ban's constitutionality, a question occurred to me: Would the newspapers who have pushed so hard for McCain-Feingold be willing to take their own medicine and agree not to run these kinds of ads in the weeks leading up to an election?

The question is more than academic. A spokesman for one of the senators who drafted that provision said those media outlets were selected because they were trying to address "a problem unique to broadcast media." But if that part of the bill goes into effect, those who use TV and radio to get their messages out before elections will have to turn to other media not covered by the McCain-Feingold restrictions. The dollars that now flow to broadcasters will flow to direct mail firms, phone bank operators and (you guessed it!) newspapers.

I put (or tried to put) the question to editors and spokespeople for the newspapers who have been most vociferous in their support for the campaign finance bill. Most dodged the issue. On the phone, some expressed more doubt about the constitutionality of the issue-ad provisions than their editorials did. Here's a look at what the newspapers wrote in their editorials and what the editors said when asked whether they would walk the walk when it comes to issue ads on their pages.

New York Times

What They Wrote: At least 22 editorials so far this year referencing campaign finance reform. A March 30 editorial heartily endorsed McCain-Feingold and backed "stringent fund-raising curbs on independent advocacy groups for so-called issue ads that mention the names of candidates and are broadcast two months before an election." On March 27, the newspaper wrote: "This page, which has a record of vigilance on the First Amendment, is convinced that nothing in the core McCain-Feingold bill, including its curbs on fund-raising for so-called issue ads by independent groups, would violate the Constitution." The Times did raise constitutional questions about applying the pre-election issue-ad restriction to interest groups.

What They Said:Editorial page editor Howell Raines referred calls to a Times spokesperson. She, in turn, provided a series of statements on Times policy. One said that opinion ads are "very rarely" rejected. The paper's policy seems to favor an unfettered exchange of ideas, even in paid advertising: "We try to keep our advertising columns as open as possible. We believe this to be part and parcel with the concept of a free press." No direct response on whether the Times would observe the restrictions on TV and radio ads.

Boston Globe

What they wrote: Four editorials since Jan.1 backing McCain-Feingold. On March 30, the Globe went even further than the Times and endorsed an amendment by Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., expanding the pre-election ban to include ads placed by advocacy groups. "We support [it] and believe it is constitutional," the paper wrote.

What they said: Deputy editorial page editor Robert Turner said he was unaware that the McCain-Feingold rules applied only to broadcast and cable ads. "We support changing the law to everyone doing the same thing," he said. "Basically, I think the principle applies … there's no reason to treat newspaper ads differently from TV," Turner said, adding that he couldn't speak for the paper or the editorial board.

A Globe spokesman said the paper accepts both political and advocacy ads, but added, "I don't think we would take attack ads. We'd look at them very carefully, very, very skeptically."

Washington Post

What They Wrote: A March 30 editorial said the issue ad provision "hardly seems too harsh," although it acknowledged the bill may infringe "a little" on free speech. At least 12 editorials backing McCain-Feingold since Jan.1. A Feb. 19 editorial described issue ads as "circumventions of the law."What They Said: Editorial page editor Fred Hiatt did not return phone calls. National ad sales manager Mark Rosenberg said the Washington Post is "probably the biggest market for [advocacy ads] in the world." Some of them are corporate, he said. Rosenberg said the Post now gets very few "surrogate ads" (i.e. issue ads targeting candidates), but said that could change if McCain-Feingold becomes law.

"Money is the ultimate fungible commodity. If they're not allowed to spend that money on TV, will they spend it in some other medium? I don't know." Rosenberg said he's tried to convince candidates to advertise in the Post but they've been "very resistant." Would the Post agree not to run issue ads mentioning candidates? "The issue really has never arisen. That kind of ad would certainly fall within our current standards of acceptance."

New York Daily News

What They Wrote: A March 18 editorial blasted "phony issue ads that bombard voters in the final days of an election." Called McCain-Feingold's plan to restrict issue ads "quite right." The paper said, "This hugely annoying and manipulative practice should be cut way back."What They Said:Editorial board chairman Richard Schwartz said he was "too new" in his job to answer questions about the paper's issue-ad policy or whether it would be willing to abide by the bill's limits on broadcast and cable. A spokesman says the Daily News has and will continue to accept political and advertising ads. He had no comment on whether the newspaper would follow the McCain-Feingold rules.

Newsday

What They Wrote:Nine pro-McCain-Feingold editorials so far in 2001. From an April 2 editorial: "Restricting the activities of interest groups is a critical element of reform."

What They Said: Editorial page editor James Klurfeld said he hadn't considered whether the paper should limit advertising in its pages, but said he doesn't think the same standards need to apply to print publications. "In my own personal opinion, the airwaves are the public airwaves. Newspapers are not regulated," he said. "There's clearly in the law, and in the way various media are treated, a distinction." Despite the paper's endorsement of the bill, Klurfeld predicted parts of it will be held unconstitutional. "Some aspects are not going to hold up," he said. A spokesman said the paper does run issue ads, but "couldn't answer" when asked whether the paper would voluntarily observe new limits if the bill passes.

Dallas Morning News

What They Wrote: Since Jan. 1, four editorials backing the campaign finance bill. On March 22, they urged senators to keep the pre-election limits on issue ads. "Such ads … only masquerade as being about issues." Called the ads "politics' equivalent of World Wresting Federation ads."

What They Said:Editorial page editor Rena Pederson said the paper takes "those kinds of op-ed ads," but added , "We weren't trying to look to our own pocketbooks." She also expressed skepticism about the issue-ad rules. "Personally, I felt some qualms about it …. I would be really surprised if it holds up in court …. We supported primarily the other planks in the bill." No answer on abiding by the broadcast restrictions, but Pederson noted that the company that owns the newspaper also owns 18 TV stations.

Los Angeles Times

What They Wrote: A total of five editorials pushing McCain-Feingold so far this year. A March 29 editorial declared, "This legislation has earned its place in America's law books." No direct endorsement of the issue-ad provision, but a Jan. 23 editorial said the bill would expose "the hypocrisy of pretending that issue advocacy ads financed by soft money have nothing to do with individual races."

What They Said: Asked if the Times would follow the limits the campaign finance bill imposes on broadcast advertising, Deputy editorial editor Judy Dugan said, "I suspect it's an issue that has never come up." Made no argument for singling out broadcast and cable. "I don't know why the law applies only to broadcast," she said. A newspaper spokesman said the paper does run issue ads, but doesn't get many. As for issue ads that mention candidates (the ads targeted by McCain-Feingold): "I don't think we have a policy against it. I just don't think we have a policy."

This column is solely the work of its author, but in the spirit of full disclosure, we offer this on our employer's interests in this fight: According to a spokeswoman, the ABC television network does not accept advertisements on "controversial issues." Ads supporting or opposing candidates are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, as are ads from political parties. Political ad buyers don't buy much network time. They tend to favor local stations. ABC owns 10 TV stations and 44 radio stations. Those stations could see an adverse impact from McCain-Feingold because they benefit more directly from those kinds of ads.