Only sensible campaign finance reform is more, not less, political liberty

My latest in the Capital Journal.  The mandatory snippet:

South Dakota Democrat Senate candidate Rick Weiland has denounced the McCutcheon decision saying it “may be the worst decision made by any Supreme Court since the Dred Scott case reaffirmed slavery in 1857.” This is absurd. I can easily come up with at least half a dozen cases clearly more heinous than McCutcheon. For example, 1896’s Plessy v. Ferguson decision in which the Court put its stamp of approval on racial segregation.

Mr. Weiland has made campaign finance reform central to his campaign. His campaign website says “the first bill” he will introduce will allow Congress to “regulate the raising and spending of money with respect to federal elections.” This is a broad grant of power to Congress to limit political speech. It certainly seems odd that the first thing this prairie progressive wants to do is to restrict money in politics by reducing our free speech rights.

Mr. Wieland is also a fierce opponent of the related Citizens United decision from 2010. In that case the government’s own lawyer, who defended Mr. Wieland’s position, admitted in oral argument that using the government’s logic the government could ban political books and films. This is not a “pro-democracy” position.