An outstanding opinion piece in the Daily Caller on the latest campaign finance seizures afflicting some incumbents.  Incumbents and advocacy groups recommend new laws, new regulations, and even proposed constitutional amendments to reign in the speech of potential opponents. Read the whole thing.

Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), unhappy with recent increases in political spending, have proposed sweeping new regulations to the federal campaign-finance system. The
duo casts its prescription as an altruistic elixir designed to spare
Americans from the anguish of too much political speech.

But their true motivation is thinly veiled. This proposal for
increased disclosure of political spending, like all other such
regulatory burdens, is designed to benefit entrenched incumbents, making
it more difficult for their critics to speak.

…the senators give away the game by admitting the restrictions they seek have nothing to do with corruption or its appearance – the Supreme Court’s only acceptable government interest worthy of restricting First Amendment rights.  Their concern instead is that, depending on their voters, people who disagree with them may speak – and speak loudly! – in opposition.  They call this potential criticism of their records “sleaze,” but there is another word for it: democracy.  Their job security is not worth impeding Americans’ First Amendment rights.