Staying free

In the fashion of petty thieves brandishing fresh sirloin at approaching dogs, Washington’s elected knaves wave tax exemptions at those other yappers, newspapers, in hopes of getting them at last to heel. Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., introduced a bill Tuesday that would permit newspapers to operate as nonprofits, something a growing number of them are doing already without the status, prompting the proposal. Get ready to bury the old watchdog.

Cardin is best known recently for his 2006 election shellacking of Michael Steele (a job Steele since has proved he can do himself). The nine-term Democrat rumbled from the Senate backseats prodded by upheaval in the newspaper industry that has felled such icons as the Rocky Mountain News and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. “We’re losing our local papers and it’s tragic,” Cardin said.

To avert further calamity, Cardin proposes making advertising and subscription revenue tax exempt and allowing tax-deductible donations to pay for coverage and operations. Newspapers would operate as nonprofit organizations, like public television stations.

Of course, there is a condition. Newspapers no longer would be permitted to make political endorsements. Comically, Cardin lamented from the Senate floor, “As local papers are closing, we’re losing a valuable tradition in America … critically important to our democracy.” This he would preserve by silencing newspapers’ editorial voices. Other lawmakers are less than perturbed by the prospect. Said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, tongue planted in cheek: “Hallelujah! That’s something I could live with.”

Well, of course he could.

And there’s more wrong with Cardin’s bill than muting editorial pages.

Accepting contributions raises the specter of influence as well as government interference and harassment. What happens when reporters’ snooping riles the resident political powers? Critically important to newspapers’ role in democracy is their independence. Having steadily nationalized banks and the markets, now Washington has its sights on dismantling the free press.

One of the industry’s captains is unruffled. John Sturm, president and chief executive officer of the Newspaper Association of America, called Cardin’s proposal a positive step because it “recognizes [that] changes in the law might be necessary to provide a boost to newspapers trying to weather this difficult economic period.”

Cardin’s proposal is a positive step like the first one over a cliff. Sturm’s reaction parallels that of financial institutions and mortgage lenders and borrowers wrecked by their own missteps and now crying out for a lifeline even if receiving it requires accepting radical transformation of American institutions.

In addition to its First Amendment implications, the Cardin bill is an example of Washington at its most vapid. If a local newspaper has been unable to generate sufficient revenue to sustain itself, how is it reasonable to expect donations to fill the void? This is like buying an umbrella in the desert expecting the device to bring rain.

The loss of venerable newspapers and others lesser known is saddening if not quite tragic. More dailies are sure to fall as the industry continues to contract. But not all newspapers stand at death’s door. And even if they did, better to cross over than accept the muzzle Cardin’s bill would apply.