Skip to comments.
Sen Russ Feingold Claims Law Does NOT Prohibit Any Ad - Requesting FReepers HELP & Expertise Please
Letter from Sen Russ Feingold's Office
| mukraker
Posted on 01/13/2004 11:44:30 PM PST by mukraker
I am requesting the help of those FReepers who know something about the new McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) please.
As one of Senator Russ Feingold's constituents I wrote him to ask about his campaign finance law and what I have perceived to be restrictions on my Freedoms of Speech, Press and Assembly. I received his reply today, and it has a very interesting claim.
Russ Feingold writes "You were particularly concerned about the Snowe-Jeffords provision on phony "issue ads," which addresses the explosion of thinly veiled campaign advertising funded by corporate and union treasuries. [That's not what I wrote Sen. Feingold about. Here's where it gets interesting.] This provision does not prohibit any ad from being run, or stop any group from speaking about any issue or any election. [emphasis added] It simply makes sure that if a television or radio ad mentioning a federal candidate is run near an election in which that candidate is running, the ad is paid for with money that is legal under our federal election laws and the donors who fund the ad are disclosed."
Am I reading this right? Is Sen. Feingold saying that all the media reports about his BCRA and it's restrictions on negative campaign ads within 30-60 days of an election were wrong? Does this mean that I can join together with like-minded fellow citizens so we can pool our money to buy and run ads critical of federal candidates, even if the organizations I freely join are the National Rifle Association, the Sierra Club, or any political party?
Does McCain-Feingold really restrict my rights as a citizen, or was it all media hype? Help, please. Thank you, my fellow FReepers.
TOPICS: Free Republic; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Wisconsin; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: campaigns; cfr; feingold; nccainfeingold
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
1
posted on
01/13/2004 11:44:32 PM PST
by
mukraker
To: mukraker
According to the
Washington Post:
And it clamped new regulations on "issue ads," commercials financed by interest groups, purportedly to advance their causes, but which critics have said are thinly disguised partisan promotions of particular candidates for office. While it did not ban any kind of ad, the law required that the funding of "electioneering communications" be publicly disclosed just as other campaign spending is disclosed. It defined "electioneering" ads as those that run in close proximity to scheduled elections and refer to a particular candidate or are aimed at a particular candidates constituency.
2
posted on
01/13/2004 11:57:11 PM PST
by
AntiGuv
(When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
To: mukraker
As long as the ad is funded with Federal-election hard money, Feingold is correct.
To: mukraker
Here's a more detailed link at Alliance For Better Campaigns:
McCain-Feingold Wont Keep Issue Ads Off the Air, But Would Change the Way They Are Financed and When They Run
The new provision does not prohibit such ads; instead, it creates new rules on how they can be financed and how they must be disclosed.
Under the Senate bill, interest groups would still be free to sponsor electioneering ads that focus on a particular candidate and air during the campaign season. But such ads would have to be paid for by regulated funds, subject to contribution limits that already apply to their political action committees [PAC].
Outside the campaign season, groups would still be free to run issue ads with unregulated money.
4
posted on
01/13/2004 11:59:52 PM PST
by
AntiGuv
(When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
To: AntiGuv
Now what if they want to "focus" on multiple candidates. Say NRA opposes both the Democrat and the Green, but the Republican and the Libertarian are both OK. Do they have to go through both the Republican and Libertarian PACs for this? This gets messy as ****.
To: HiTech RedNeck
Senator Feingold will be pleased that no one knows if they are breaking the law or not ~ totalitarians are all that way and it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
Still, he gets a "twofer" here in that he got a totalitarian law passed and he gets to restrict First Amendment liberties.
Joe Stalin must be smiling in his grave.
6
posted on
01/14/2004 9:50:03 AM PST
by
muawiyah
To: mukraker
So-called "Campaign Finance Reform" is nothing less than an abridgement of the 1st Amendment.
Could the founding fathers have intended for "exotic dancers" to be protected speech, while at the same time intending to prohibit a group of like-minded individuals from running an advertisement endorsing or criticizing a candidate because of his stand on a particular issue?
Somehow, I think not.
I'd like to band together with others this Fall, and see them try to prosecute me for expressing my opinions, as protected under the 1st Amendment. Political speech is our right and I have no intention of allowing it to be taken away by anyone. Would anyone be interested in jointly sponsoring an advertisement during the "quiet period" leading up to the election?
7
posted on
01/14/2004 1:28:35 PM PST
by
LouD
To: AntiGuv
Thank You all. I knew there was more to it than what my interpretation of Feingold's comments meant.
8
posted on
01/14/2004 2:08:40 PM PST
by
mukraker
To: LouD; Valin; DustyMoment
I hope it doesn't come to that. We need to pressure Congress for a repeal before the 60-day window takes effect.
I have called my representative. Please do likewise!
9
posted on
01/14/2004 10:00:03 PM PST
by
The_Eaglet
(Conservative chat on IRC: http://searchirc.com/search.php?F=exact&T=chan&N=33&I=conservative)
To: mukraker
10
posted on
01/14/2004 10:01:42 PM PST
by
The_Eaglet
(Conservative chat on IRC: http://searchirc.com/search.php?F=exact&T=chan&N=33&I=conservative)
To: mukraker
Feingold is correct. I have been screeching about this to the "Doom and Gloomers" here who are claiming the end of the Republic because of this law. This is met with charges that I am a statist, anti-free speech, hater of the Constitution, supporter of un-Constitutional laws etc.
Only idiots will lose any Free speech rights because of this law.
11
posted on
01/15/2004 10:23:21 AM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: muawiyah
Nonsense.
12
posted on
01/15/2004 10:24:16 AM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: LouD
Only idiots will have lost any rights because of this law. Idiots and those who want to launch anonymous last minute attacks. Full disclosure allows true choices.
You really believe the Founders would have a problem with making adverisers own up to who they are working for? Or who would have a problem with regulating the control of monied interests over the electorate?
13
posted on
01/15/2004 10:27:30 AM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: mukraker
"It simply makes sure that if a television or radio ad mentioning a federal candidate is run near an election in which that candidate is running, the ad is paid for with money that is legal under our federal election laws and the donors who fund the ad are disclosed." The fishy part is the phrase I bolded. What does it mean? If I've given my $2000 limit (or whatever it is) to the Bush campaign, would any personal spending by me on running pro-Bush ads be not "legal under our federal election laws"?
To: AntiGuv
such ads would have to be paid for by regulated funds, subject to contribution limits Censorship. As Justice Scalia said, a clear violation of the First Amendment.
To: Land of the Free 04
I don't disagree. I always thought McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional. I was merely answering the question.
16
posted on
01/15/2004 11:33:02 AM PST
by
AntiGuv
(When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
To: justshutupandtakeit
Only idiots will have lost any rights The only idiots here are the ones who don't understand the law and it's ramifications.
Explain to me where in the Constitution it says that my God-given right of free speech is limited to the amount of air time or newspaper space I can buy for $2000. Further explain to me why a liberal newspaper can run an endorsement of a candidate, and I can't buy space on the same page to endorse a different candidate.
Then explain to me how a a TV network, sucking up to one candidate with positive news coverage, is OK, but my purchase of a commercial advertising spot during the same newscast to support a different candidate somehow is a great evil.
It's not just idiots who lose rights, it's all of us. It's the NRA, Right to Life, your local county party. Unfortunately, only idiots won't understand that their God-given rights, enumerated under the Constitution, have been abridged.
17
posted on
01/15/2004 12:10:59 PM PST
by
LouD
To: LouD
First of all no restrictions exist on ANY print ads at ANY time on ANY subject. So that myth should be retired.
Secondly government is a party in broadcast transmission since it licenses those who use it. Thus, it has every right to regulate it. Never would the Founders have conceived of such a medium thus there is no violation of any 1st amendment intentions.
Third: An endorsement in a NEWSPAPER is not a campaign ad and placement of any other ad is not subject to governmental purview. That is something the newspaper is free to do and free to locate as it wishes.
Fourth: only ads that are explicitly avowed by the candidates are allowed within that time period. No more sneak attacks which are anonymous are prevented.
Fifth: there is no governmental regulation of who or what a broadcaster can slant the news toward or against.
There is no God-given "right" to say or do ANYTHING in a broadcast. You can still go down to the street corner in your placards and say or do anything about anyone.
Most of the fears you express have no justification wrt this law and YOU have lost NO rights. Unless, of course, you consider the ability to launch a last minute, below the belt, anonymous sneak attack over the TV.
18
posted on
01/15/2004 1:45:38 PM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
Only idiots will lose any Free speech rights because of this law. So it is OK to deny free speech from idiots?
To: Always Right
What I have been trying to tell everyone, is you simply declare yourself a news organization, and poof, the problems go away.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson