A conservative pundit who really does think

Long-time readers of ShrinkRap know that I usually disagree with syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer on almost every issue.   When he appears as a pundit on tv news shows, I find him personally unpleasant.    Yet he is one of the more reasonable, thinking conservative pundits.

His recent column "Transparency no longer key to campaign giving" lays the problem out this way:   "On the one hand, of course money is speech. . . .  contributing to politicians or causes is the most effective way to amplify speech with which they agree. . . .  On the other hand, of course, money is corrupting."

Krauthammer then says that in the past, full disclosure of who gives what to whom had been the compromise that allowed freedom while keeping down corruption through disclosure of sources of the potentially corrupting money.

However, he goes on to say that there have been too many incidences of personal information obtained in the disclosure being used to hurt the donor and even the unlawful disclosure of confidential data.    He cites the newly appointed CEO of Mozilla internet company, who was politely encourged to resign after it surfaced that he had made a $1000 contribution to support the anit-gay marriage Prop8 back in 2008.  

I'm not sure that I agree that this is the problem as much as that it opens the donors to backlash from the opposition to the mega-donors, as we are now seeing with the Democrats' trying to undercut the Koch brothers by exposing the extent of their corrupting influence in our political process.  It's funny how they want to protect their freedom to express their views -- and pay millions to advertise them -- but want to restrict the freedom of others who criticize them for holding those views.   This was the theme that Charles Koch took in his op-ed whine about people criticizing him.

Nevertheless, Krauthammer does at least have a rationale for his opposition to any campaign finance regulation, even when I disagree with his conclusion.  And it is refreshing to have an opponent who actually does think and reason, instead of the unthinking shouters that echo the latest lies and conspiracy theories.

Krauthammer concludes with the very reasonable formulation that I so often employ:   The dilemma is basically a clash of two values, each of which has merit.   Here it is the clash between right to freedom of expression and right to equal opportunity.

Krauthammer chooses unfettered freedom of expression;   I would stick with some limitations of that freedom in order to bring some balance back into the equal access and equal opportunity to influence the political process.

Ralph