"Some in Washington want to rein in 527's with greater government control and regulation, and that is certainly their right and a path that is consistent with the letter and spirit of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. However, I believe instead of greater government control of political speech, more freedom is the answer and that is why I could not support this bill. And while this liberty may be a bit more chaotic and inconvenient for some in the political class, as Thomas Jefferson said, 'I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.' The answer to problems in politics in a free society is more freedom, not less." —Rep. Mike Pence, Chairman of the Republican Study Committee

Congress seems all too eager to reign in political speech, in the name of fairness or some other perceived good. We must ask ourselves how the further removal or restriction of political discussions from the public sphere can possibly improve the quality and quantity of ideas we all examine, accept, or reject in our effort to find political consensus. One must question the motivation behind such efforts, recognizing that the marketplace of ideas must be protected from any efforts to stifle political debate.  In doing so we may find that from such legislation, political advantage accrues to those already in office and efforts to reform our government are further crippled. It is this self-interest, aimed at protecting incumbency, that must be exposed and rejected if we are to preserve the process by which we protect the exercise of our freedoms.

 

What did you think of this article?

Liked
Disliked
No Opinion