Ignoring the threat to free speech-Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 48

Victorville Daily Press ^ | 1/28/04 | MARK TAPSCOTT

[Valin]

Having spent years as a newspaper reporter and editor, I am proud to be called an "ink-stained wretch." But I am mystified by the newsroom silence about a legal dagger aimed at the heart of the First Amendment and the free press.

That silence should worry every citizen who cares about preserving his or her right to speak out on the issues of the day. The Constitution makes journalists our independent watchdogs to keep the politicians honest. We all lose if the politicians muzzle our watchdogs. But must journalists help tie their own muzzles?

The dagger is the underlying logic of the Supreme Court's recent McConnell v. FEC decision upholding McCain-Feingold, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, including its ban on soft money campaign contributions and issue ads on television and radio.

Congress "shall make no law" limiting freedom of speech or the press, according to the First Amendment to the Constitution, but with its recent decision the Supreme Court now says Congress can limit First Amendment freedoms to avoid the "appearance of corruption" in politics.

The law bans issue ads, which often praise or blast incumbent congressmen for their votes on key issues, for 30 days prior to a primary and 60 days before a general election. The ban should be especially worrisome for journalists whose livelihoods depend upon the unfettered expression of opinion and public debate on the news of the day.

If issue ads create a corrupting appearance 60 days before an election, they must be corrupting 61 or 90 or 120 days before votes are cast. And ads that corrupt on radio and TV must also corrupt in the newspaper and on the Internet. See how the Supreme Court's logic sets a precedent that can only lead to growing restrictions on freedom of speech and the press?

That is why Justice Clarence Thomas ended his stinging dissent with this disturbing prophecy: "The chilling endpoint of the Court's reasoning is not difficult to see: outright regulation of the press." No wonder Justice Antonin Scalia called the decision "a sad day for freedom of speech."

Shouldn't journalists be up in arms when a Supreme Court justice says government censors in the newsroom could be within sight? Evidently not, judging by the Web sites of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Society of Professional Journalists. I found no mention of the decision on the three Web sites, so I e-mailed leaders of the groups asking about their silence.

Other issues have preoccupied ASNE and RCFP, said Scott Bosley, executive director of the former, and Rebecca Daugherty, director of the latter's Freedom of Information Service Center. "The issue, while important, is not smack in the middle of our wheelhouse, as so many critical public records matters have been in the past couple years," Bosley said. Conflicting editorial stands by various newspapers also would make finding unanimity difficult, he said.

"Campaign ads have traditionally been a back-burner issue for us, and we've had a lot on our front burners these last few years," Daugherty said, noting that she had not seen the Thomas or Scalia dissents but would "see if we can at least get those covered in some context."

SPJ has its regional conferences coming in April. Surely these gatherings would be appropriate forums for discussing the Supreme Court decision. Yet only four of the eight folks listed on SPJ's Web site as conference contacts responded to my e-mail inquiries. None of their conference programs include anything on the Supreme Court decision. All three organizations do great work on those other issues, but doesn't the specter of government regulation of the press deserve at least some comment?

ASNE's Bosley suggested part of the explanation here. Many of the nation's most influential editorial pages supported McCain-Feingold and lustily cheered the Supreme Court decision upholding the law, including the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Baltimore Sun, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and The Washington Post. Having second thoughts now wouldn't look so good.

Even so, big corporations own all of those papers. How enthusiastic will they be when federal bureaucrats decree editorial pages owned by big corporations can't express opinions about candidates or their positions if doing so creates the appearance of corruption?

Mark Tapscott is director of the Center for Media and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation and oversees its Computer-Assisted Research and Reporting program. Readers may write to the author in care of The Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, D.C. 20002; Web site: www.heritage.org.

[Valin]

Yesterdays Thread
What Does Campaign Finance Reform Mean for Judicial Elections?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1066138/posts



Note: If you would like to be on/off this Campaign Finance Reform list please let me know

[Valin]

HOORAY For John!

Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob
Special to FreeRepublic | 17 December 2003 | John Armor (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?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1042394/posts



Update
I've already tested the idea of my in-your-face challenge ads, first in the print media and then deliberately illegal on TV, with certain editors I have a long relationship with. I could trust these two gentlemen, one in the print media and the other in the broadcast media, with a "heads up" on what I am planning. Both said they wanted to know, in advance, when I am about to do this.

The bottom line is clear. If I am willing to put my neck on the line, with the possibilities of a fine and jail time, THAT effort will put CFR back on the front page in all media. And that is part of the point. There's not much value of going in-your-face against the enemies of the First Amendment unless the press takes up the story and spreads the word. It is now clear they will do exactly that.

Update 2
QUICK PROGRESS REPORT, ANSWERING A SUPPORTER'S QUESTION:
We have about 15% of the needed 1,000 sign-ups.

Spread the word, direct folks to the front page link on my website.

Google-bomb the phrase "anti-CFR" directing readers to that page and link. (We're already #2 and #4 on Google.)

Target date is now August, since the NC primary looks to be put back to September. (Remember, the ad isn't illegal until the 29th day before the election.)


Cordially,

John / Billybob


Note if you are interested in more on this please contact myself or Congressman Billybob

[The_Eaglet]

That is why Justice Clarence Thomas ended his stinging dissent with this disturbing prophecy: "The chilling endpoint of the Court's reasoning is not difficult to see: outright regulation of the press." No wonder Justice Antonin Scalia called the decision "a sad day for freedom of speech."

[Eastbound]

"The ban should be especially worrisome for journalists whose livelihoods depend upon the unfettered expression of opinion and public debate on the news of the day."

The ban would make Hitler proud. The media's lack of response is proof that self-censorship has already begun.

[jimkress]

BUMP!

[Valin]

Given that the USSC depends heavily on its own precedents.
Be afraid...very afraid!

[Valin]

From Yesterday

Citizens and civic groups may have a new tool to use in pressing for more media coverage of judicial elections, adds the Campaign Legal Center. In upholding BCRA's provision that broadcasters keep public files on requests for campaign ad time, the Court noted that this provision could be used to help decide, "whether broadcasters are too heavily favoring entertainment, and discriminating against broadcasts devoted to public affairs."


uh huh...and who decides if the media is offering a "level playing field?" Who regulates the advertising dollars that keep shows on or off the air? Even if you overlook the fact that the media is nothing more than a bunch of corporate conglomerates with special interests of their own, wouldn't a "public affairs" show be subject to the same kind of corruption, distortion and in-kind contributions through advertising dollars that the so-called "sham" ads are subject to?

Who decides? Why the same fine folks who gave us this monstrosity, of course.
Rampant freedom, people saying whatever they want, people saying bad things about politicians? No No No! We can't have that.

[King Black Robe]

Many of the nation's most influential editorial pages supported McCain-Feingold and lustily cheered the Supreme Court decision upholding the law, including the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Baltimore Sun, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and The Washington Post. Having second thoughts now wouldn't look so good. Even so, big corporations own all of those papers. How enthusiastic will they be when federal bureaucrats decree editorial pages owned by big corporations can't express opinions about candidates or their positions if doing so creates the appearance of corruption?

Exactly! The media only cares about its own power to influence. The rest of us get in the way. We're appalling, greedy and partisan; they're not. We have evil motives; they do not. They think they have super rights, that the first amendment is just for them. In a constitutional republic, he who informs the people rules the world. That's why no restrictions on political speech is so vital.

[Valin]

None are so blind as those that will not see.

[DustyMoment]

What's wrong with this picture? Approximately 1-1/2 months AFTER the SC's decision to kill the 1st Amendment, only ONE newspaper reporter seems to have developed an understanding of what happened.

Where IS the anger?? Surely, these reporters and editors, people whose entire jobs are built around writing, reading and interpreting words, know and understand the consequences of the SC's opinion on CFR. If we are generous, we might believe that they are still in shock. I choose to believe that they are complicit in the decision since they were specifically excluded from the free speech limitations - IF CONGRESS APPROVES (which should scare the bejeebers out of the media). Despite the fact that they understand that CFR is not and never was about limiting campaign financing, these opinionated blowhards have maintained their silence about this issue.

I, too, would like to know, what's really going on?

[Valin]

See reply #10.

Surely, these reporters and editors, people whose entire jobs are built around writing, reading and interpreting words, know and understand the consequences of the SC's opinion on CFR.

Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act they can print anything they like. So it gives them more power. What they don't see is if congress can pass this what's to stop them from passing a bill to control what the media says.

[The_Eaglet]

Forward Link:

Clarity Needed on Campaign Law-Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 49

[Gritty]

If issue ads create a corrupting appearance 60 days before an election, they must be corrupting 61 or 90 or 120 days before votes are cast. And ads that corrupt on radio and TV must also corrupt in the newspaper and on the Internet.

BTTT