The Federal Election Commission will hear testimony today and tomorrow about its proposed regulations aimed at implementing the McCain-Feingold restrictions on political speech. The testimony, already available in draft form, makes illuminating reading. Especially so for those of us who opposed this law, also known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, all along as an unconsititutional infringement on the First Amendment freedoms of speech, assembly, and petition. The big news is that many of the groups who cheered Senators McCain and Feingold as they pressed for this law now realize that it would gut their free speech rights.

Take a look at what the liberal groups said back before the law was passed. “Make McCain-Feingold the law of the land,” MoveOn.org said. The Sierra Club supported the McCain-Feingold law, calling it “a strong first step toward real reform” and “getting big money out of politics by closing loopholes in current campaign-finance laws.”The president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, Kate Michelman, told the Boston Globe, “We think some reform is needed. There is too much money being spent in campaigns.” Reform Judaism hailed the law as “a historic step today toward healing a systemic sickness in our democracy” and said the law will “go a long way toward abating the pernicious influence of money in our electoral system.”

Here’s what they say now, in the FEC testimony. The MoveOn.org Voter Fund now says, “we are concerned about the potentially devastating impact of the FEC Proposal on all tax-exempt nonprofit organizations that engage in public policy advocacy and/or voter participation programs.” The Sierra Club and Naral now say, “The proposed rules would seriously impair vigorous free speech and advocacy, as well as voter participation now and in the future. They would double, triple, or even quadruple the number of citizen organizations whose activities are subject to pervasive regulation by the Commission.” Reform Judaism now says “we are especially concerned that this proposal would silence the prophetic voice of religion in American Society.”

What accounts for the flip-flop? Back in 2001 and 2002, these advocacy groups thought the ones being gagged would be the political parties and the big corporate donors to them. Now their own free speech is under fire, they are upset. It’s a classic case, of, as Nat Hentoff puts it, “free speech for me but not for thee.”

For our part, to the Sierra Club, Naral, Moveon.org, Reform Judaism, and dozens of groups like them who have changed their tune, we say, welcome to the fight for free speech.

The next time the campaign finance “reformers” come around, more Americans will remember that when the free speech rights of any of us are curtailed, the free speech rights of all of us are in jeopardy.