Against Free Speech

CNN:

The Kerry presidential campaign on Friday filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, alleging ads from an anti-Kerry veterans' group are inaccurate and "illegally coordinated" with Republicans and the Bush-Cheney campaign. The complaint was filed against Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It states that "based on recent press reports and SBVT's own statements there is overwhelming evidence that SBVT is coordinating its expenditures on advertising and other activities designed to influence the presidential election with the Bush-Cheney campaign."

Obviously the SBVT are trying to influence the election. They don't like John Kerry and they don't want him to be president. They are entitled to their opinions and they are entitled to share those opinions by buying ads to get out their message. Personally, I am of the opinion that the Navy gave John Kerry his medals, and while that is not in and of itself proof that he deserved them, on that issue that is good enough for me. Questioning whether he has made up stories to further his political goals (Christmas in Cambodia) or whether his actions upon returning home from the war were a betrayal of the troops seem to me to be totally fair game however. This is doubly true since John Kerry has made Vietnam such a big part of his campaign. Others will differ on what is important and what is not about the person they choose to elect as President. Good. Let everyone hear all the opinions and make up their own minds. This is not a partisan issue for me. I disagree with MoveOn.org but fully support their right to create and buy advertisements. On this I disagree strongly with the Bush Campaign who would like to shut down all 527s. If fact, I disagree with McCain-Feingold. I don't think that the government should regulate speech, particularly political speech. We do not need the government to protect us from ourselves. This part of the article seems deceptive to me:

The ad, part of a $600,000 ad buy in battleground states, is funded primarily by Republican contributors from President Bush's home state of Texas, according to federal records.

SBVT recieved a lot of it's initial funding from a few Republican contributers from Texas Washington Times:

But the $158,750 in donations that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth reported in its last IRS filing show a strong bias among its donors. Of that total, $100,000 came from Texas developer Bob Perry. A profile published in the Dallas Morning News in November indicated that Perry has donated more than $5.2 million to Republican candidates running for office in Texas. Perry has also given generously to national conservative causes, according to IRS filings collected by the Center for Public Integrity. In 2002 he gave $250,000 to the Majority Leader's Fund of Tom DeLay, R-Texas, $170,000 to Americans for a Republican Majority and $50,000 to the conservative People for Enterprise, Trade and Economic Growth. The next $50,000 of the $158,750 donated to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth came from John O'Neill and Harlan Crow, who gave $25,000 each.

My understanding though, is that one of the effects of the first Swift Boat add, and it's primary purpose, was to get funding from a wide variety of people. I also understand that it has been very successful at doing so, hence the new $600,000 ad. The last IRS filing for SBVT was on June 30, well before any of the ads were broadcast so it is difficult to know exactly who has contributed since (a quick web search failed to reveal any information on this.) Note that even if SBVT had received most of their money from a single source (AKA George Soros's contributions to MoveOn.org) this would still be legal. Convincing a rich person to fund your controversial positions may be difficult, but it is possible, unlike trying to convince a government to fund them. This is why the right to free speech is so important. I believe that the American people are capable of making up their own minds about issues like these. Apparently the Bush and Kerry campaigns do not and would prefer to fully control the debate.