NR on Bradley Smith
By krempasky Posted in FEC — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In the current print-edition of National Review, Byron York has a fantastic article about FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith. Most bloggers simply know Smith as the guy that rang the alarm bell over possible regulation of the internet. But he's had a far more interesting run in Washington than that.
"In an open letter to President Clinton, leading reformers charged that putting a critic like Smith on the FEC amounted to “an act of utter disdain and disrespect for the laws.” How could someone who had criticized the campaign-finance laws possibly enforce them? Senate Democrats blocked his confirmation, starting a months-long standoff. Finally, a deal was struck: Democrats agreed to end the Smith blockade in return for Republicans’ allowing 16 of Clinton’s judicial nominations to go forward. Thus Bradley Smith became the most expensive FEC commissioner in history."
Those who value freedom owe Smith a standing ovation for his time in Washington, and we should all hope he might be coaxed back into public service in the future.
“I think we would benefit by thinking of the First Amendment less as a sort of bizarre, libertarian impediment to badly needed regulation than as a well-thought-out approach to how political activity ought to work,” Smith says. “And the basic premise is: It is very dangerous to give the government the power to determine who gets to speak and who doesn’t.”
Amen.
« Financing the General Election — Comments (6) | Testimony Before the FEC — Comments (0) »
NR on Bradley Smith 5 Comments (0 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
You know, I hear there are a couple of jobs opening up elsewhere in Washington, and a guy like Smith could really inject some much-needed respect for the First Amendment over there....
How about nominating Smith to the Supreme Court? What's his stance on Roe v. Wade?
Mike, I have not bought a print edition of NR since Buckley's full-issue takedown of Pat Buchanan. Do I need to again?
Gives some insight on how the bureaucratic imperrative moves with a sort of anti-freedom momentum. The very idea that free speech is an impediment to well thought out regulation, as has been done with the latest 'campaign reform' is at once infuriating but not surprising. But, it should become very clear that the parsing of the 1st, which started with the suppression of religious freedom, could never stop with just religion. Itg was no mistake the FF's added protection for religious freedom before even free speech. It was no mistake that those who seek to curtail our freedom have stgarted with religion. Speech is next on the list, with the right to assemble right after that. If we let it continue to unwind, and decline to restore our freedoms, they will be taken away by well meaning judges, reformers, bureaucrats and ACLU types in exactly that order.