The Patriot Post® · 'Incumbents Protection Act'

Thomas Sowell: “The recent Supreme Court decision over-ruling some Federal Election Commission restrictions on political campaign contributions has provoked angry reactions on the left. That is what often happens whenever the High Court rules that the First Amendment means what it says – free speech for everybody. When the Supreme Court declared in 2010 that both unions and corporations had a right to buy political ads, that was considered outrageous by the left. President Obama called the decision ‘devastating’ and said it ‘will open the floodgates for special interests.’ Those unfamiliar with political rhetoric may not know that ‘special interests’ mean people who support your opponents. One’s own organized supporters – such as labor unions supporting President Obama – are never called ‘special interests.’ All politicians are against ‘special interests,’ by definition. They all want their own supporters to have the right to free speech, but not those individuals and groups so benighted as to support their opponents. … Publicity is necessary to win elections, and incumbents get millions of dollars’ worth of free publicity from the media. … Few people have the kind of money it takes for such a campaign, so they have to raise money – in the millions of dollars – to pay for what incumbents get free of charge.” Campaign finance laws that restrict who can contribute how much money, who can run political ads, etc., are all restrictions on political challengers who have to buy their own publicity. If truth-in-packaging laws applied to Congress, a campaign finance law would have to be labeled an ‘Incumbents Protection Act.’“