Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 17 December 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Congressman Billybob]

This is nothing like the usual whine by someone whose post was pulled. JimRob pulled my previous thread for a good reason. "If direct fund-raising were permitted on FR, it would soon be wall-to-wall fund-raising."

So, let's start again correctly. This is about civil disobedience to support the First Amendment and challenge the TERRIBLE CFR decision of the Supreme Court to uphold a terrible law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.

All who are interested in an in-your-face challenge to the 30- and 60-day ad ban in the Campaign Finance "Reform" Act, please join in. The pattern is this: I'm looking for at least 1,000 people to help the effort. I will run the ad, and risk fines or jail time to make it work -- AND get national support.

But there should be NO mentions of money in this thread, and not in Freepmail either. This is JimRob's electronic home, and we should all abide his concerns.

Put your comments here. Click on the link above, and send me your e-mail addresses. I will get back to you by regular e-mail with the practical details.

This CAN be done. This SHOULD be done. But it MUST be done in accord with JimRob's guidelines.

Fair enough?

[Congressman Billybob]

Y'all and I can post on this thread all comments like those on the original thread EXCEPT for mentions of money. I look forward to hearing from you.

[Congressman Billybob]

I hope this is satisfactory, and that the discussion can begin again. Admin, I hope it might be appropriate to put in a link so those who are stopped from joining the old thread can get a reference to visit this one.

John / Billybob

[Prime Choice]

I will run the ad, and risk fines or jail time to make it work

Where do you propose to run the ad? I don't think any media outlet will accept it, based on the advice of their own lawyers.

[Glenn]

Sounds to me like you are asking for money.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Can't you just sit back like the rest of us and accept the encroachment on our 1st Amendment rights?;-)

[King Black Robe]

BTTT!!!!!

[WorkingClassFilth]

If one wanted to support freedom of speech, where would one send that support?

[Congressman Billybob]

Please quit it. Ads aren't run for free.

However, no mention of fund-raising belongs here, on FR. JimRob made that decision, and I AGREE with his conclusion for the self-protection of FreeRepublic. So let's keep the discussion on the legal, political and mechanical aspects of the challenge to CFR.

The subject is too important to get this thread closed as well because I or anyone else fails to follow the guidelines of FR. Okay?

John / Billybob

[joesnuffy]

sorry I dont have any em oh en e why

[kimmie7]

You, my dear, are a class act.

[GeekDejure]

Y'all and I can post on this thread all comments like those on the original thread EXCEPT for mentions of money. I look forward to hearing from you.

Howzabout mentions of Bucks! That would probably get PETA involved too. Oh deer, what am I thinkin'??? ;-))

.

[BillF]

I don't think any media outlet will accept it, based on the advice of their own lawyers

Good question for Cong. BB.

Doesn't CFR 60 day rule only apply to radio & TV, but not print ads? (No wonder all the liberal papers supported it.)

Does the 60 day rule apply to non-broadcast cable channels (i.e., those that do NOT have FCC license)?

[Congressman Billybob]

As said on the other thread, there will be two kinds of ads. The print ones will go in friendly (conservative) newspapers. However, the TV ad run 29 days before the primary WILL appear on the only TV station in this district.

Long before the current revision in the federal election laws, there was a provision that broadcasters MUST run any prepaid ad offered by a federal candidate (House, Senate, President). And they CANNOT censor such ads. Witness presidential candidate Barry Commoner's ad that used the word "Bullsh*t" about the Republicans and Democrats generally, and it WAS run on a national, radio network.

That network did NOT want to run that ad. But the law said they HAD to run it, and they did. The national media picked up on that ad big time and provided free ink. They never, however, quoted that word.

This has been thought through. Details like that are buttoned up in advance.

John / Billybob

[Servant of the 9]

If I have understood the Supremes ruling correctly, you as an individual are allowed to advertise any time you want. It is only if an corporation is involved that the prohibition applies.
If you were to just put monies sent you in your checking acct and then bought adds in your own name it would be legal, or it would for most of us. You would probably be in violation of some campaign finance law.

Do you plan to place this add as an individual or to form an organization to do so?

Either way, count me in.

So9

[Congressman Billybob]

Please click the link above, and send me your e-mail address. I don't think I should put my address here, in light of JimRob's concerns. Thanks.

John / Billybob

[Tunehead54]

Interesting idea ... you might want to update your profile with a good link to your earthlink site - if we can't mention green things with pictures of dead presidents on them nor use FReepmail its hard to help.

---

;-)

[Monitor]

Scene 1: A Patrick Henry lookalike giving his "Give me liberty, or give me death" speech.

Scene 2: John McCain and Russ Feingold lookalikes forging a large and heavy chain.

Scene 3: McCain and Feingold chaining Patrick Henry, and taking him away after he finishes his speech.

Scene 4: Five robed justices (representing the five that upheld the McCain-Feingold law), in powdered wigs, declaring Patrick Henry in violation of the King's law, and sentencing him to prison.

[Radix]

Can't you just sit back like the rest of us and accept the encroachment on our 1st Amendment rights?;-)

Yeah, why don't we all just mind our own business, and let the Government tell us what we can and cannot say during the height of a political campaign?

I posted this related thread a couple of days ago.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1041116/posts?q=1&&page=1

[Radix]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1041116/posts?q=1&&page=1

[Congressman Billybob]

The 30- and 60-day ad bans apply ONLY to broadcast media, radio and television. Therefore, the in-your-face ad, 29 days before the primary in North Carolina, should be placed on the only TV station in this district, the one in Asheville. Actually, there are two TV stations here, but the other serves four smallish markets simultaneously, but three of those are in South Carolina. LOL.

John / Billybob

[.38sw]

Can't you just sit back like the rest of us and accept the encroachment on our 1st Amendment rights?;-)

That's right. I'm sure that there are compelling state interests at stake here.

[El Gato]

I don't see how a cannidate running the ad is running afoul of the law in the first place. There are issues of hard money donations to the cannidate, but if the cannidate is running the ad, isn't that allowed under the Act? I'm sure I'm missing something here. The act is complicated, you can't possibly understand what it does without having a copy of the US code handy since it doesn't go in all in one place and refers to many sections of the code.

For this non lawyer, although my daughter and her husband are lawyers, just wading through the syllabus of the decision was enough to make me want to go out and wash my brain. IMHO, that alone was enough to gag a maggot, as my mother would say. :)

[Congressman Billybob]

Freepers are smart people. Your questions are spot on.

As a candidate, I could broadcast any ad I want to. But corporations are expressly barred from running such ads. So, I will form a non-stock, non-profit corporation for the sole and exclusive purpose of running the in-your-face ad.

As a candidate I can get the ad on the air. By using a corporation to produce it, I can force the authorities either to come after me, or abandon the law. Both sides of the equation are necessary to make this work.

John / Billybob

[WinOne4TheGipper]

As you could tell by the ;-), I was pointing out the reaction of most of the people who would see the thread.

[proud American in Canada]

"The subject is too important to get this thread closed as well because I or anyone else fails to follow the guidelines of FR. Okay?"

I agree! We've got to abide by the guidelines, which are completely understandable. Who wants thousands of Freepers pitching ads for whatever? Nobody.

And the Internet is apparently just about the last place where freedom of speech still remains. FR is one of the most popular, largest, most influential website--and it is certainly the place where people who want to repeal this ridiculous law, or at least the advertising portion of it, can reach the largest number of people.

[proud American in Canada]

"You, my dear, are a class act."

Yes, he is. :)

[Congressman Billybob]

Use the link at the top of this thread. Anyone who forgets my link can Google "John Armor" and hit the "I Feel Lucky" button. LOL.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

See post 23. Candidates can run any ad they want. Corporations, however, are barred.

J / BB

[proud American in Canada]

"Can't you just sit back like the rest of us and accept the encroachment on our 1st Amendment rights?;-)

Yeah, why don't we all just mind our own business, and let the Government tell us what we can and cannot say during the height of a political campaign?"

You know.. I told my friends up here about this law. One of them said, "you mean they passed something like that?"

I said, "they not only PASSED it, the Supreme Court UPHELD it."

Their jaws dropped to the floor--that is NOT the reputation that the United States has regarding freedom of expression. Indeed, in this regard, the U.S. is the role model on this planet.

The parliament is debating whether or not the Bible is hate speech up here (I'm not kidding). In opposing this, some politicians have made comparisons with the U.S.

If the U.S. loses freedom of speech, then any shred of free speech elsewhere will quickly follow. Obviously, that's not the main concern--but we are the guardians of not only freedom, which we have done so admirably in Iraq, but also of liberty.

Iraq is developing a new government. What kind of example does this law set?

Valin, would you please send this thread to the CFR ping list? Thanks. :)

[Boss_Jim_Gettys]

John,

Thanks for the thread. I had the same thoughts when the Supremes upheld this !%@%# law. The only way to fight it is to violate it and run it through the courts. I support any and all efforts to do this.

Could you please, for those of us laymen, elaborate on how one could violate the law?

For example, if I and 999 of my closest friends were to form some sort of association, formulate a negative ad directed against the democrat nominee for President in 2004, and were able to run same ad in a friendly outlet (print, radio, tv, newspaper, website???) less than 30 or 60 days prior to the election, would that do the trick? What if I were to do it myself?

Please let us know various ways to go with this. I agree that this is an important issue to fight any way we can, and will do all I can to help.

Thanks again for your efforts.

[tpaine]

Sounds to me like you are asking for money.
4 Glenn

---

Please quit it. Ads aren't run for free.

8 John / Billybob

---

Good point, Glenn. -- Campaigns aren't run for free.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

I completely agree. I'm disappointed that anyone could possibly think that this is a good law. Unfortunately, enough Republicans in Congress thought that the president should get whatever he wants, not to mention the fact that the last hope for stopping it- those who did not need to win elections or keep their poll numbers up- thought that this was a good idea. IMNTBHO, those five justices should be impeached and thrown out.

[Dog Gone]

By using a corporation to produce it, I can force the authorities either to come after me, or abandon the law.

I don't get it. The authorities will come after you, and then what's your recourse? It can't be fighting it in court. No court is going to overturn the law which the Supreme Court just upheld.

It seems to me that the only way to fight this is in Congress.

[El Gato]

not to mention the fact that the last hope for stopping it- those who did not need to win elections or keep their poll numbers up- thought that this was a good idea. IMNTBHO, those five justices should be impeached and thrown out.

It's a good idea all right, for incumbents. Whose going to impeach and throw out those Justices? The same House that passed the law, or the Senate that also passed the bill, by a slightly higher margin in fact, and also failied to through the Impeached One out of office. They not only failed to throw him out, they failed to look at the evidence that the House managers brought over to them, IOW, they didn't even seriously consider throwing him out. They are going to impeach and throw out those who enable their incumbancy? Don't hold your breath.

[IncPen]

ping... check this out

[Xthe17th]

the in-your-face ad, 29 days before the primary

... and I certainly hope you'll also be running it 28 days, 27 days, 26, 25, 24 days before the primary, etc. etc...

[Congressman Billybob]

Unlike most federal agencies, the FEC has no power to prosecute anyone for violation of its laws. Absent a Consent Agreement, it must take any criminal case to a federal court. And, criminal courts have juries.

My last ditch defense is that at least one member of the jury will take the First Amendment more seriously than five Justices of the Supreme Court did. It's called jury nullification, a subject that many Freepers believe in.

John / Billybob

[Dog Gone]

Okay, so you get jury nullification in this one case. That doesn't change the law, of course. Wouldn't you have to do this multiple times in multiple jurisdictions to prove to everyone that the American public won't convict on these charges?

Or is it your hope that it will be such a high-profile case that the general public will reverse its opinion on CFR and force Congress to repeal it?

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Congressman Billybob asked that I ping my conservative stalwarts list to this.

I have some concerns I ought relay to you all.

I've often questioned Billybob's (John's) sanity (IMHO, he profers to my "favorite" elitist FReeper, Common Nightshade, too much esteem), but I'm willing to grant John some rope with which to work here.

I believe this effort ought actually be labeled not as conservative or liberal, but as anti-statist, anti-tyranny The form that tyranny has taken here is judicial mostly; but our erstwhile political class benefits IMMENSELY, and they passed this thing in the first place begging that they didn't want to be thrown into that there briarpatch -- "OH PLEASE DON'T" -- and claimed the dastards made 'em do it, and besides "the SCOTUS will bail us out."

I know I am not the only one to think "we've been had."

You all will hafta tell me if John here was a big dubya booster before this episode. Was he amongst those telling us to wait and see how the Prez would stand firm against Leftist forces despite what he was saying and with whom he was allying?

As most of you who know me, I think that Statist forces are far too chummy with the Left, and even count on the Leftist bogeymen to help them make gains at the expense of true conservatives (and true liberals and true libertarians too if anybody here notices yet). Together they form the party of the elite Establishment, the RepublicRats™. (Does anybody need me to post my cartoon again?)

Anyway, here is Congressman Billybob's Hugh & Series effort to challenge CFR. I wish us luck.

[Congressman Billybob]

The best result would be that Congress passes the repeal of the ad ban, which has already been introduced. There is also a non-sourced statement that Bush would "pardon anyone" convicted under this part of the law. My plan is option three.

When the government is embarrassed by losing a slam duck case on a questionable law, it sometimes backs away, treats it as a dead letter and refuses to enforce it. Also, that result would contribute to Congress deciding to repeal the ad ban.

All possible attacks on this law need to be mounted simultaneously. Each might be insufficient by itself, but all together can be effective.

John / Billybob

[StoneColdGOP]

I believe this effort ought actually be labeled not as conservative or liberal, but as anti-statist, anti-tyranny The form that tyranny has taken here is judicial mostly; but our erstwhile political class benefits IMMENSELY, and they passed this thing in the first place begging that they didn't want to be thrown into that there briarpatch -- "OH PLEASE DON'T" -- and claimed the dastards made 'em do it, and besides "the SCOTUS will bail us out."

I know I am not the only one to think "we've been had."

Well said, and quite correct. Correct on all counts.

[BillF]

the in-your-face ad, 29 days before the primary in North Carolina, should be placed on the only TV station in this district,

Why will they risk their FCC license to run your corporation's ad? Won't they just turn it down upon advice of counsel?

[Porterville]

God I love this place... Why do so many of you think like I do, but then go the distance.... I love it... give me your address and I can pitch in a few bucks; I'm back in scholl and a little broke but I will kick down 20 bucks to stick it to O'Connor and McCain.

[Drango]

Is this sorta like NOT having sex with Monica Lewinski?

Good luck anyway :-)

[Congressman Billybob]

Thanks for your ping to your colleagues.

In response to your various questions -- I use the word "conservative" for shorthand, but you are right that this is a "statist" problem. (Yep, there are times that conservatives go for larger government and slip into the dark side.)

Negative truth: I was one of those who assured everyone that the Court would NEVER approve this law. That mistake will lead to my resignation from the Bar of the Supreme Court, but that's a subject for another day.

I said when Bush signed this thing that he was wrong on the Constitution but that I understood the politics of his decision. Of course, that position depended on the Court not going squish on the First Amendment. Bush was wrong. I was wrong. I'll make amends. We'll see about him.

Feel free to raise any other questions you might have.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

To repeat, no broadcaster "risks his license" to run such an ad. To the contrary, the broadcaster MUST carry the ad.

John / Billybob

[Porterville]

Like Judge Moore.... Get the press to bite and we have a cause.... you just need a Martyr

[Congressman Billybob]

Right, but I hope I handle myself a lot better than Judge Moore did.

John

[Old Professer]

What does the 60 day rule apply to?

[Dog Gone]

My concern is that you'd be convicted (or your corporation, if you manage to shield yourself) by a jury that believes in CFR, which I think most Americans unfortunately still do.

Whether that helps or hurts your personal candidacy for Congress is an interesting question, but a jury verdict which supports the bill is NOT helpful to the repeal of CFR.

And that is not an unrealistic outcome, especially if the ad is an "in your face" type of ad.

I'm not opposing your idea. I'm still trying to understand whether or not it's a good one.