Prominent lawyer discusses free speech and politics-C F R Thread

At a time when free speech issues are rife at the University of Louisville, a preeminent attorney specializing in First Amendment rights recently spoke on campus. On March 1, Floyd Abrams discussed some of the largest cases he has worked on as an attorney.

Best known as co-counsel in the Pentagon Papers case, Abrams primarily discussed his latest role working with Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., prosecuting the McCain-Feingold bill that intends to reform campaign finance. According to Abrams, the bill disallows any group from running television advertisements that refer to political candidates within 60 days of an election, 30 days of a convention or 30 days of a primary.

This law applies not only to political parties and corporations but also to non-profit organizations such as the Sierra Club and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Previously, many attorneys have attempted to undermine campaign finance reform proposals by equating the action of providing campaign money to speech. Abrams and attorney Ken Starr instead focused on the limitation of free speech imposed by the television advertisement restrictions.

“Political parties have first amendment rights, too,” Abrams stated. “This is a major limitation on free speech.”

According to Abrams, the Federal Election Commission has not allowed political and corporate groups or individuals to run advertisements directly endorsing candidates. While Abrams concedes that many advertisements strongly imply endorsement on behalf of the paying group or individual, he also stressed how other advertisements serve to educate the public about pertinent, election-time issues.

Even if the latter comprises only 10 to 15 percent of the total number of advertisements, Abrams believes that all forms of political advertisements should be allowed. “What sense does it make that you can’t say vote for John Edwards but you can say John Edwards did a good job on the Panama Canal? It’s a tough question to answer,” Abrams said.

The Supreme Court decided 5-4 that the provisions against television advertisements would remain in the McCain-Feingold bill.

Abrams cited the dissenting opinion issued by Justice Anthony Kennedy to best reflect his own opinion that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the McCain-Feingold bill has diminished the First Amendment.

“Never before has a court of law upheld a bill that limits the freedom of speech to this extent,” Kennedy wrote.

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 Valin or Congressman Billybob

"“What sense does it make that you can’t say vote for John Edwards but you can say John Edwards did a good job on the Panama Canal?"

I suspect in time you will not be able to use editorial content. The above quote will probably have to be written something like this in a couple of years:

'An unidentified presidential candidate was involved on an inter-oceanic waterway somewhere south of North America and somewhere north of South America.'

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.