Here’s a Twitter conversation I had today with one of the Grey Lady’s preeminent political reporters:

Forgn Pol on "first known instance of a foreign national exploiting Citizens in order to influence U.S. elections." http://t.co/Gh271aeBnD

— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) February 12, 2014

Once corporate contributions can be spent directly on campaigns, very easy to use shells to hide source of money, including from overseas.

— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) February 12, 2014

@nickconfessore That’s a prototypical and fundamental mischaracterization of what CU actually said: http://t.co/dy3VY3tRoH

— George Scoville (@stackiii) February 12, 2014

@stackiii What did I mischaracterize?

— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) February 12, 2014

@nickconfessore Corporate contributions (esp. foreign) can’t be spent directly on campaigns after CU. Fast forward to 2:20 in the video.

— George Scoville (@stackiii) February 12, 2014

@stackiii I didn't say "contribute to campaigns," I said "spend directly on campaigns," i.e. through independent expenditures.

— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) February 12, 2014

@nickconfessore IE groups aren’t “the campaign,” anymore than the New York Times is. Both are media companies, different revenue models.

— George Scoville (@stackiii) February 12, 2014

@stackiii Once you allow corporate IEs, very hard to police conduit donations from foreign corps. to domestic ones, even if illegal.

— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) February 12, 2014

@stackiii But it would be clearer to assert that this is a practical impact of Citizens, not the letter of the decision.

— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) February 12, 2014

@nickconfessore People give to corporate PACs. People working at corps cut checks to people at IE groups.

— George Scoville (@stackiii) February 12, 2014

@nickconfessore Communications cost money, and people have rights. That’s what CU said. “Hard to police” presumes guilt in all.

— George Scoville (@stackiii) February 12, 2014

@stackiii Doesn't presume anything. Just pointing out that Citizens makes it easier (true).

— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) February 12, 2014

@nickconfessore Do you have a problem with NYT or other outlets spending money to write, publish, and distribute a candidate endorsement?

— George Scoville (@stackiii) February 12, 2014

@nickconfessore Yes, the ruling constrained what the government may do to inhibit political speech protected by the First Amendment.

— George Scoville (@stackiii) February 12, 2014

@stackiii I guess that's why they register with the FEC. Just a couple of online newspapers, right?

— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) February 12, 2014

@nickconfessore FEC registration itself is a form of prior restraint, and built on a presumption of guilt of corruption. (1/2)

— George Scoville (@stackiii) February 12, 2014

@nickconfessore Color me shocked, shocked I tell you, that people with existing political power want it to be hard to challenge them. (2/2)

— George Scoville (@stackiii) February 12, 2014

@stackiii Go ahead and file your lawsuit demanding that NYT register as a political committee, lemme know what happens. My point stands.

— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) February 12, 2014

@nickconfessore No, I actually like #1A. I’m not going to bludgeon you with instruments of public policy because I disagree with you.

— George Scoville (@stackiii) February 12, 2014

Twitter, while an interactive, conversational medium, isn’t perfectly fluid, so a few of these may seem out of order — but you should still be able to follow the thrust of the conversation relatively easily.

The real crux of Confessore’s problem with the status quo in our campaign finance regime (or his objections to additional pro-liberty changes to the status quo) surfaces when he objects to my characterization of super PACs (or independent expenditure groups generally) as media companies, akin to his employer The New York Times, by mockingly suggesting that they’re “[j]ust a couple of online newspapers.” No, of course they aren’t newspapers, and neither are they Hollywood production companies. But that doesn’t matter: the First Amendment to the Constitution makes no such distinction between types of political speakers. On the contrary, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution constrain the federal government from infringing on the individual liberties of people, whether they’re casino magnates, reporters at a paper of record, employees of an IE group or super PAC, or some schmuck with a blog and an Internet connection.

On an unrelated note, Confessore also seems to object to the notion that independent expenditure groups simply aren’t political campaigns. Our intellectual betters insist that we conflate the two, despite the fact that laws prevent the two types of entities from coordinating on either the substance or timing of communications and related expenditures (even though the nation’s leading campaign finance reformers can’t seem to be troubled to obey those laws). If we don’t go along with those who insist they know better, one of their more prized organizing principles of the past few years become completely useless, and they would be forced to leave it on the roadside for dead. But I digress.

So why make any distinction at all, especially an artificial one, between political speakers? Because Nick Confessore is a member of a privileged class of information vendor, a type of self-appointed referee of the game of politics, whose veneer of objectivity is the sine qua non of his very livelihood. Like an elected official, Confessore has to sell us all on the idea that he’s a beacon of truth in a world full of lies and injustice, and that his speech about politics and policy is somehow different from yours, mine, or a political opponent’s, more deserving of certain legal protections. If that speech isn’t particularly special in any way, Confessore loses his political power (which he has, don’t doubt it for a minute), if not his job — and he hates competition. And who doesn’t hate competition? I just wish reporters would be honest about why they keep trotting out the same, tired campaign finance tropes they’ve been propagating for over 50 years.

Anyway, that’s why Nick Confessore treats his rights as somehow more inviolable than a Republican billionaire’s.