When Senator McConnell recently and aggressively needled Norm Ornstein at an AEI event, the coverage first settled on the jibe, and then, a little later, on the Senator’s denial that his position skeptical of campaign finance disclosure had changed for 25 years. All interesting or entertaining enough, but the Senator said more about his objections to campaign finance regulation—all government involvement in campaign finance, including disclosure and public financing—and it is well worth close attention.

Campaign finance jurisprudence is intensely concerned with free speech rights, less and decreasingly with associational rights, and not at all with a more comprehensive conception of the requirements for conducting political action—“doing politics.” Why this is so is worth exploring. Something is missing here, and the gap is consequential.

Rick Hasen recently published an interesting article on the legal remedies for malicious lying in politics. Richard L. Hasen, A Constitutional Right to Lie in Campaigns and Elections, 74 Mont. L. Rev. 53 (Winter 2013) . He fears that “false and misleading speech may be increasing” in a “highly charged partisan atmosphere, in which each side cannot agree upon the basic facts,” and that the media, including the burgeoning fact-checking corps, “are not able to meaningfully curb candidates' lies and distortions.” Id. at 54. 55. Legal responses seem largely beyond reach, particularly after the Supreme Court’s decision in Alvarez v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012), which Hasen reads to indicate that “broad laws targeting false speech stand little chance of being upheld, regardless of topic.” Id. at 69.

No one questions that campaign finance law has struggled through multiple, agonized revisions in distinguishing issues from campaign speech and the discussion of campaign issues from advocacy for candidates or parties. The statute is little help; it speaks of the “purpose of influencing” an election,” 2 U.S.C. §431(8)(A)(i), and broader Commission glosses on the phrase, such as a test for whether a message was “electioneering” in content, eventually came to grief. The Supreme Court held the express advocacy line briefly, then gave in to a conception of the “functional equivalent” of express advocacy, and has since cast much of discussion into obsolescence by extending to corporations the right to make independent expenditures. Now tax policy-makers and tax law face pressure to work through the same issue, in limiting political intervention by 501(c)(4)s, and the results might be expected to be the same.

Below is the text of a speech delivered this month to the American Constitution Chapter of Duke University Law School.

The Supreme Court has taken yet another case testing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms, and informed observers anticipate another defeat for the 2002 law. But it could be more consequential than just one more loss in the war against soft money. The case, McCutcheon, is a case involving “hard money” contribution limits which, it has been assumed to this point, Congress possesses wide authority to impose and enforce.

This is the great divide established by Buckley v. Valeo, the one that separates “contributions” from “expenditures” on the theory that restrictions on contributions to candidates pose less of a threat to speech than those applied to expenditures that travel from the wallet of the spender directly to the airwaves or into the mailbox. One is taken to be a weaker form of expression than the other and entitled to less protection.

Such is the standing framework within which the constitutional issues affecting campaign finance are judged: one form of speech or the other, each weighed differently on the First Amendment scale. And trailing along behind them is the right to association, a distant third, and really an echo of the first two, as the associational interest here is typically treated as “expressive” in nature.

As someone who has long represented political actors—counseling on various forms of political action—I detect a problem here, which I would like to explore. It is the problem of refusing independent recognition, a weight all of its own, to political action—the business of building coalitions and acting in concert with allies to achieve political goals. The challenge is to distinguish political action from pure speech and locate a constitutional interest in what I will call here “doing politics.”