Excellent news from Switzerland, as the Swiss Parliament has legalized abortion. The Swiss are notorious laggards when it comes to women’s rights issues: that whole women’s suffrage thing didn’t go through until 1971, but this is an encouraging sign. Unfortunately the Christian People’s Party may be able to hold up decriminalization for a few years by forcing a referendum before the new law is enacted. I do applaud CPP for their honesty about the fundamentally obstructionist, anti-choice, anti-woman nature of their stance: the Party President, Adalbert Durrer, summed it up by saying that The question of abortion should not be considered by the woman alone. [She needs a big strong white-coated man in there to overcome her feminine irrationality!]

The ACLU has put out an important Press Release: 03-01-01 — Limits, Limits and More Limits: Why McCain-Feingold is Wrong for America. Whether McCain-Feingold represents a double-barreled attack on political freedom in America or not is open to question, but the ACLU certainly articulates some really important concerns about the restrictions on publishing information about candidates. As I said earlier, I really wouldn’t mind seeing the fund-raising activities and 30-second ads of citizens’ groups — or corporate interest groups — die in favor of their get-out-the-vote organization and personal contact with legislators. However, if the act comes through in such a way as to prevent all distribution of issue-based advocacy near elections, then it will be a stranglehold on outsider activism and become what Rush Limbaugh has dubbed it, the Incumbent Protection Act. (It’s a strange, sad day when I find myself quoting Rush Limbaugh).

Salon.com is announcing a for-pay premium service, proving that free content on the web is officially dead. Jakob Nielsen ought to jump all over this as proof of the need for micropayments, and I would heartily agree. But, in the meantime, I would advise subscribing if you’re an avid Salon reader, unless you really look forward to more !@#$ing pop up flash ads…

The Money Jungle by William Saletan is an interesting analysis of some of the pitfalls for the coalition over McCain-Feingold. This was particularly perceptive:

McCain imposes disclosure requirements on interest groups that run ads against candidates close to an election. He portrays these groups as constitutionally protected but insidious. In his worldview, citizens are on one side, and special interests are on the other. McCain’s chief antagonist, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., sees it differently. My favorite definition of special interest is a group [that’s] against what I am trying to do, McConnell quipped during Monday’s debate. McConnell offers a kinder term for organizations whose missions he favors: citizens’ groups.

It’s worth pointing out in this context that currently the biggest PAC in American politics is not the National Rifle Association or incumbents’ re-election PACs. It’s EMILY’s List, a PAC focused on electing more women to office. Not exactly my idea of a malignant special interest.

But, on the other hand, this presumes that the only thing that citizens’ groups have to offer is money for campaign contributions or interest ads. This is most of what they do today, but that’s only because money is so powerful in modern campaigning. An organized group of citizens has something besides money behind them: they have votes. And, geeze, isn’t that what democracy is supposed to be about? Part of the point of changing the campaign finance system is to make it so that citizens’ groups no longer compete for the amount of money they can organize, but rather the number of, well, citizens.

This week’s This Modern World is a surprisingly accurate portrayal of The O’Reilly Factor Read the rest of Tom Tomorrow Takes on O’Reilly …