The Federalist Society is an organization devoted the discussion of public policy issues. As such, what could be better than one of our own assuming a role in a government agency charged with an issue of critical-and growing-importance?

 Professor Brad Smith has finally been appointed to the Federal Election Commission (sadly, putting an end my prodding him as Professor Bork). In a letter of opposition, Common Cause has decried Professor Smith as a "disastrous nomination." Their news release goes on to state that the nomination means "President Clinton has even further damaged his own credibility," a feat hard to believe accomplishable. Vice President Al Gore felt it necessary to condemn the nomination, calling Professor Smith "unfit for the office."

 What makes Professor Smith so controversial is his view that campaign finance does need reforming-in the opposite direction from what groups like Common Cause and The Brennan Center advocate. While they oppose the increasing money spent on elections, Professor Smith believes otherwise. And when you contrast the $665 million spent in the 1996 contest and contrast that with the $4 billion spent on potato chips that year, Professor Smith has a point.

 No thoughtful person denies that money is given to candidates in order to gain access (access used to gain support for their positions). However, in an age where a hyperactive legislature regulates everything that moves, it seems that campaign contributions are more an extortion (or maybe self-defense). It seems real campaign reform would require limiting the power of the legislature through limiting its real power base: taxes and regulatory power.

 If in fact there were less regulation directly harming people, there would be less reason to have to try to purchase your local elected representative in the first place. These so-called "reformers" merely describe the symptom and not the real ailment.

 In this issue, Professor Mayer writes on a topic close to home: the liberal bias in law schools. As the Left is wont to do, they define diversity under terms fitting their political agenda, blocking the ability for thoughtful people to debate these issues on the merit. This bias is the very reason the Federalist Society was formed. In a sort of theme editorial, Professor Smith's departure will leave us one shy in the faculty ranks of open-minded, thoughtful faculty members. Lets hope Capital replaces Professor Potomac with someone as open as he is.

 Also, Jonathon Blake is back with another important article falling into the theme of having issues defined and precluding debate. Jon's article concerns environmentalism. Jon and I agree that liberals are continually allowed to steal issues such as the environment-to the detriment of any opposing views. More of us on the battlefield of ideas should make a claim to these and other issues and forbid their begin defined by others to preclude our debate. -The Editor