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?

[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.

[Dog Gone]

Please don't use Judge Moore as a role model. He has done more to entrench the separation of church and state than anyone in the past 50 years.

Sure, he's a martyr, but I'm convinced that he volunteered to sacrifice the cause so that he could run for governor on the martyr ticket.

[heleny]

What does the 60 day rule apply to?

The 60 day rule applies to general elections for federal office. The 30 day rule applies to primary elections.

[Porterville]

I understand what you are saying. I like that he showed, along with this CFR, that the Feds are out to break the backs of the states.... it also exposes the Court system is trying to strong arm the legislative branch.... the more exposure of these SOBs the more likely their behavior will change....

[LibKill]

Well, if a FReeper who lived next to a major highway wanted to paint prominent political messages on his barn, heavy equipment, or whatnot, that would be one way to get a message out. If there are no laws in the way, such a FReeper might even construct his very own billboard sign.

[MonroeDNA]

I am in for cival disobedeance.

[not-an-ostrich]

I thought the thread was going to read the terms "hugh" and "series" were being pulled.

[SteveH]

I think it's not enough just to challenge a law. Look at the experience in California. What eventually "worked" is replacing the top guy in charge. That put all the little guys and little gals in the California legislature on notice, and they began to respond a little better to the people's will in the immediate aftermath of the recall.

Really, the easiest way to have avoided the problem was for Bush to have refused to sign the bill or veto it. Bush is the point at which the pressure is most conveniently applied.

By the way, Bush is coming up for re-election. If there were to be any print ad campaign, it should place his picture at the top and label him as part of the problem. If he doesn't figure out how to solve the problem he was responsible for enabling, then, ...

[Central_Floridian]

Do you think that would "strike a chord" in many Americans?
I don't. Such an ad would appeal to me, but I am afraid most Americans don't care about the Founders, and have little respect for them.

[BillF]

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

Sorry to be dense, but I'm not understanding.

The 30/60 day rule does NOT apply to candidates. So you are going to have a separate corporation set up to test the prohibition.

But the "must carry ad" rule ONLY applies to candidates. So the corporation that you set up can NOT be the source of "must carry" ads.

In other words, two situations:

1. candidate ad - must carry, but not subject to 30/60 rule

2. advocacy ad mentioning candidate, run by corporation - not subject to "must carry," but subject to 30/60 rule

Please enlighten this recovering attorney before I relapse.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Count me in......

This is much too important to sit by and wait for someone else to make the changes.