Dollars as Free Speech

To the editors:

As Kathleen Sullivan, dean of Stanford Law School, and others have argued, the explosion of "soft money" is in fact an unintended consequence of the post-Watergate contribution limits lauded by the editors (Editorial,"Bring Reform to the Floor," Jan. 5). Because donors cannot give all they would like to candidates, money is given to parties as well as independent organizations, many of which sponsor reckless ads for which candidates remain unaccountable.

The McCain-Feingold bill will make matters worse, as suggested by recent imbroglios in Germany under its heavily-regulated campaign finance regime. Donations to parties will be limited, but those to independent organizations--e.g., the notorious "Republicans for Clean Air"--will not. The Supreme Court has protected their spending as free speech, and rightfully so. By allowing the government to regulate political speech, we necessarily restrict the voices that will be heard and run the risk of further strengthening incumbent politicians.

Why not resolve the problem through more speech? Remove the contribution limits, establish full disclosure and allow the public to decide. Candidates will be accountable for the content of their ads and the source of their money.

Reihan Morshed Salam '01

Jan. 6, 2001