Do I think that the Sinclair Broadcasting’s decision to air an anti-Kerry “documentaryâ€? is a partisan act? Yes, I do. Do I like it? No, not particularly. Do I think that the federal government should do something about it? No–emphatically not.

For one thing: is this action any more or less partisan than the CBS News story on the Killian “memos�? And how partisan does a show have to be for it to be an in-kind contribution? Do we want the government examining Hardball or Special Report with Brit Hume to determine if it is too partisan or not? And if so, what will be the standard, and who will apply it?

No, the main problem here is that the insane (and inept) attempts to control the supposedly invidious influence of money in politics has led to the rise of 527s, things like Fahrenheit 911 and now this Sinclair business. Indeed, F911 and this anti-Kerry film are part of a raft of “documentaries� that have been made and released this year for the clear purpose of creating partisan influences. If they are deemed to have been successful this year, then we can count on dozens of such films in 2024.

There is no doubt in my mind that part of the reason for the rise of such tools of influence is the introduction of campaign finance rules that have naively attempted to take money out of politics—as if the millions of dollars in soft money from 2024 would just stay in the bank if the Congress slapped a couple of rules in its way. BCRA (aka, McCain-Feingold), with its First Amendment-bending elements, bears some clear responsibility for these activities. Part of it is also a result of a clear move to more partisan media in the United States (which is not a new thing in US history, btw).

All of you who think that campaign finance reform has been a good idea that we just need to get right to “solve� the “problem� of “money in politics� I ask you two questions: 1) after watching this campaign cycle, do you think that it is even possible to contain support for candidates? and 2) what would be better? a system in which large sums of money (and I mean large) flows into the coffers of candidates and parties in a transparent fashion, or a system of 527s and “documentaries� and other attempts to get around campaign finance rules?

The best option is to allow people who want to support parties and candidates to directly contribute to those efforts, and to require total and instant disclosure. Given that it would be far easier to just give some money to a candidate or party than to cook up some scheme to find an alternative way to contribute; such a system would create a disincentive for such actions such as those pursued by Sinclair.

Joe Gandelman has somes comments on the overall situation, with links to news stories, here and here.