Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
We need a new way to deal with these "independent" citizens groups that are all the rage in modern politics.
It is no coincidence that a lot of the stuff being pumped out by these groups is negative and vicious.
You know why? Because there is no accountability in the marketplace of ideas. Anonymous attackers hiding behind a fake name spread their slime, and don't have to pay any social price for it.
Meanwhile, the candidates who benefit from these attacks on their opponents get to look clean and honorable.
Hence we have George W. Bush (and before him, Bill Clinton) portrayed as Adolf Hitler.
And we have John Kerry, who took enemy fire in Vietnam, sneeringly accused of being a fraud and a liar.
Monkey see, monkey do. Here in Florida, we've already seen an "independent" group running ads attacking Betty Castor, former president of the University of South Florida, for harboring terrorists at "Jihad U." The Republican side of the race was nasty too.
There are laws governing these independent groups. Supposedly, independent groups aren't supposed to "coordinate" their campaigns with the candidates.
But the laws are a joke. The same people are jumping back and forth between the John Kerry and George W. Bush campaigns and some of these "independent" groups.
We keep trying to write more and more laws to fix this. The McCain-Feingold law, which had noble intentions, also has some restrictions on the right of citizens to organize and campaign - which, when you think about it, is core First Amendment activity.
Last week, the feds blocked an anti-Kerry group called "Citizens United" from using unregulated money to promote a documentary film and a book attacking the Democratic candidate. The group will have to use regulated campaign contributions, because it is within the 60-day window before the election set out in the law.
This is not the way to go.
American citizens should be able to say whatever they want about politics. They should be able to assemble, print, broadcast and speak anything they want. They should be able to "coordinate" with the campaigns they support, too.
We don't need more laws. What we need is more social regulation of political speech.
What we need, in other words, is a sense of shame.
HOWARD'S PROPOSED PRINCIPLE OF POLITICSA political candidate should be judged by, and held to account for, the sleazy statements of his or her supporters. A candidate should be held personally responsible for the moral tone set by his or her supporters.
Right now, any hardbitten political pros reading this are laughing cynically, or working up some pious indignity.
They will say:
"We can't be held responsible for what our people do! My goodness gracious, it even would be illegal for us to tell our supporters what to do, because that would be coordination!"
To which I say: Tough noogies.
The first time that EMILY'S List runs some kind of idiotic attack on Mel Martinez in this upcoming U.S. Senate race, it should be considered Betty Castor's fault, and she should be punished in the market of public opinion. If she doesn't like it, all she has to do is set a moral tone, denounce the ad and shame her supporters into stopping it.
And the first time some nutbag group tries to claim that Betty Castor was partying with the terrorists at USF, the same goes for her opponent, Mel Martinez.
Whenever I complain about attack politics, some of my friends in the business accuse me of trying to stifle debate. Bull. There are more issues to disagree over than any election in history. They can disagree all day long.
But if candidates benefit from "independent" groups doing sleazy attacks that help them, they should be judged for it by the voters. This should be the standard in our society. This, not more laws and regulations, is the way to fight this sick trend.