PATTERICO’S COMMON SENSE IS ECHOED: In today’s Washington Post, Robert Samuelson echoes the argument I made yesterday about campaign finance reform, and the phony “coordination” distinction. His argument is so similar to mine that the conclusion is inescapable: Samuelson must be a new Patterico reader. Here is the argument in Samuelson’s words:

In its 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision — ruling on the 1974 campaign finance legislation — the Supreme Court attempted to straddle the contradiction. Congress could not, as it had tried to do, limit campaign spending without dangerously curbing speech, the court said. But Congress could limit campaign contributions, because dependence on big contributors might create corruption or “the appearance of corruption.”

In practice, this lawyerly distinction hasn’t worked. Here’s why. Suppose I want to contribute to your campaign; federal law limits how much I can give. But the law allows me, on my own, to spend as much as I want to elect you. Now, suppose I ask you how I should spend that money — what ads to run, what mailing lists to use. Once I’ve done that, my “spending” effectively becomes a “contribution” to you.

To plug this loophole, the Federal Election Commission has rules restricting “coordination” between candidates (and their staffs) and anyone spending independently on their behalf. You and I are limited in how we can associate and what we can talk about. Problem solved? No. The “solution” deprives us of our guarantees of free speech and political association.

Go Robert! Go Robert!