Question: When is political speech no longer protected speech?

Answer: When it threatens a politician’s chances of getting re-elected.

As if free use of the mail service (franking privileges), subsidized travel, and name recognition weren’t enough of an advantage to your average incumbent in Congress, last week the House now passed the “Incumbency Protection Act,” also known as Shays-Meehan.

How does it protect incumbents? First and foremost, “issue ads” run by third parties that make mention of a candidate are explicitly banned within 60 days of the election, under penalties up to $25,000 and jail time. One might think we were living in Soviet Russia to be subject to such undemocratic provisions.

More well-known, however, is the so-called “ban on soft money” – money that is contributed to parties rather than to candidates directly.

Proponents have cited everything from the “corrupting influence of money” to the recent collapse of Enron as mandates for this crusade.

To give them credit, they have been reading up on Marx. After all, “Money is the root of all evil.”

However, look closer and you’ll see the rank hypocrisy put forth by these proponents. If “soft money” contributions to parties are corrupting our democratic processes, then they themselves have quite liberally taken part in the whole warped process. After all, when is the last time one heard of a candidate refusing party contributions to their campaign – especially an incumbent seeking re-election?

Given this, one must rely on the logic of Shays-Meehan (and its Senate corollary, McCain-Feingold) to conclude that these individuals are obviously corrupt beyond hope as they are beholden to special interests and thus, all derivative works of theirs are equally tainted.

One particular proposed amendment (that proponents of Shays-Meehan labeled a “poison pill” designed to kill the bill) was a proposal to enact the provisions contained within it immediately, instead of in 2004 (the next election cycle).

If tactics like this don’t scream sanctimonious hypocrisy to the end of incumbent politicians trying to get re-elected while giving the illusion of reform, what does?

Perhaps more important is the cavalier manner in which supporters of Shays-Meehan have dodged all constitutional scrutiny. Namely, the fact that monetary contributions to candidates are considered “protected speech” covered under the First amendment under Buckley v. Valeo. Alas, the Constitution is not enough to stop these crusaders of “justice”; theirs is a holy war that transcends all bounds. Indeed, this is a fight about corruption, and if the Constitution should get in the way, the Constitution be damned.

While the McCainiacs are rooting out corruption, maybe they’d be well-served to attack one of the larger sources of corruption in the system: pork-barrel spending.

Perhaps the greatest source of Washington waste (and “payback” to favored contributors) occurs through the process of luring federal dollars back into their home states for the purposes of “job creation” and “helping the local economy.”

Don’t hold your breath waiting for action on this one. After all, what constituency is going to look favorably upon a candidate who boasts to his constituents, “I cut $200 million in wasteful federal spending to our district and eliminated 3,000 completely unnecessary jobs.”

More than anything, however, the ban on soft money contributions proves to be completely self-serving in nature. Candidates still receive “matching funds” on campaigns, stolen directly from the treasury based on rules rigged to protect the two large parties while ensuring that third parties are rendered ineligible to receive funding or refuse to do so on principle.

Voters are coerced into funding candidates they ideologically disagree with. Federal money subsidizes the travel of incumbents to every campaign fund-raiser they attend. What better way than to squeeze the life out of any competition than to cut out all avenues of funding?

If the logic of campaign finance was true, then supporters of reform would be better served to lead by example. Immediately forego contributions from their parties and cast off the rank hypocrisy that surrounds them. Eliminate “hard money” contribution limits to candidates and hold themselves and their opponents accountable to where their contributions are coming from.

And lastly, give the voters credit for having some intelligence. If candidate X is being funded entirely by TakingOverTheWorldScumCo, then perhaps voters are intelligent enough not to vote for them.

Alas, Chris Shays and Marty Meehan already realize what this columnist does as well – campaign finance reform is to politics as the proverbial “Hallmark Holiday” is to society. A contrived scam.

If voters care about campaign finance, they are free to show it through their vote. And if they won’t . well, in the logic of McCain and his cult of followers, sometimes Washington has to do the thinking for them.

Steve Skutnik is a senior in physics from Palm Harbor, FL. He is currently the Election Commissioner for GSB.