http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/000859.shtml#000859 From Reason: The New York Times has a hilarious story describing how members of Congress are only now discovering, to their dismay, the requirements of the "campaign finance reform" law they voted for last year. "We sometimes leave our audiences in a state of complete shock," says a lawyer who teaches the intricacies of McCain-Feingold to Democratic legislators. The seminars elicit "a sort of slack-jawed amazement at how far this thing reached." A lawyer who runs similar sessions for Republicans says, "There's an initial stage where the reaction is, 'This can't be true.' And then there's the actual anger stage." McCain-Feingold may be an unconstitutional monstrosity, but maybe it will lead members of Congress to reconsider their habit of voting for legislation they haven't read. In any case, it's richly satisfying to see legislators worry that they might be tossed in jail for a seemingly trivial mistake such as speaking at the wrong event or letting your name appear on an invitation. This is the kind of fear and uncertainty their convoluted laws routinely impose on ordinary Americans.
I was supportive of passing CFR, thinking that McCain-Feingold would need pretty substantial revision, but it was good to get the process started. I still think that's true, but I didn't realize the full extent of the legislation and the amount of changes needed. There are some pretty substantial problems and it's quite likely that lawyers will be even more important in 2004 than they were in 2000.
My favorite part was how the candidate must have his face on the screen for the last 4 seconds of a commercial, and one guy was complaining (noting?) that this would make negative campaign ads more difficult. If it works out that way, I'm definitely for that part of the law, anyway.