The other infringement

In my mind, campaign finance law -- not just McCain-Feingold, but all of it -- infringes on the First Amendment right to free speech. That's not an uncommon view, but unfortunately only four Supreme Court justices hold it.

There's another infringement, though, that isn't talked about much. Also guaranteed in the First Amendment is that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble." This explanation is from Wex, which sounds sort of like a legal Wikipedia maintained by Cornell Law School:

The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individual's current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with first amendment rights.

I'm thinking about this because of Bryan's snide aside in a story about Ron Paul's blimp that campaign finance reform "did such a good job of getting money out of politics." Point being that RonPaulBlimp.com is not associated with the Ron Paul campaign, and therefore can accept unlimited contributions to keep the thing aloft.

Here's my beef, which I've run into on several occasions over the last few years:

Richie Rich supports Ron Paul for President. Rich, by himself, could finance Paul's campaign. But under current law, he can contribute just $2,300. (He can do some other stuff to funnel a little more money directly to the campaign -- contribute to pro-Paul PACs, for example -- but it wouldn't come to much. Rich's total political contributions for any given election are limited to $108,200.)

But Rich, like the blimp backers, wants to do more. So he forms a 527 political committee. He can spend his entire fortune, through this committee, pushing a Paul presidency. And he can take unlimited contributions from other bigwigs toward that end.

One thing he can no longer do, however, is talk to Ron Paul or anyone associated with Paul's official campaign. That would be illegal coordination. But it seems to me that by taking the only option campaign finance laws afford to fully exercise his freedom of speech, he's also lost his right to associate with people of like mind for a common purpose.

This happened to me in 2006, when I had to tell a good friend in May I couldn't talk to him until after the November election. The agency I worked for was hired by a 527 to do some mail & media in the governor's race, and my friend was the candidate's campaign manager.

Wex says there are exceptions to the right of association "where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with first amendment rights."

You think the framers of the First Amendment would agree with those exceptions? Or would James Madison have asked Sens. McCain & Feingold, "What part of 'Congress shall make no law' don't you understand?"

I know that makes me sound like Paul. But then, that's why so many people are drawn to his candidacy. Not me -- I always liked George best. But a lot of people.