Campaign Finance Reform Thread, Day 93

In response to the FEC rulemaking on political committees, the Alliance for Justice, Charity Lobbying in the Public Interest, the National Council of Nonprofit Associations, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, and OMB Watch have developed four principles that they believe must be incorporated into any new rule the FEC adopts.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is conducting a rulemaking proceeding that will determine the scope of federal election regulation and define what constitutes electoral activity that can be regulated under the Federal Election Campaign Act. We are nonpartisan, charitable organizations that believe in the importance of genuine issue advocacy. We are not attempting to address all issues involved in the rulemaking, but we believe that any rule adopted by the FEC should, at a minimum, adhere to the following principles:

Genuine issue advocacy must be left free of FEC regulation. The democratic process depends not only on citizens voting, but also on people and nongovernmental organizations speaking up about the issues of the day, including pending legislation and acts by public officials. The Constitution protects such advocacy from being burdened by laws and regulations unless a compelling state interest justifies it. Government should be wary of making any rules that will discourage citizens and nonprofit organizations from participating in our democratic process. The FEC has no legitimate interest in attempting to regulate genuine issue advocacy, which addresses issues and public officials in their role as policymakers, not as candidates for federal office.

Tax law should not be imported wholesale into election law. Tax and election law serve different purposes, and tax exemption is voluntary, while FEC regulation is not, and violation carries criminal penalties. Therefore, the FEC must be cautious in drawing on tax law for campaign finance purposes. Not all activity that is considered “electioneering” for tax purposes is subject to FEC regulation, and we are not advocating a position on extension of FEC powers beyond current regulations.

While we do not believe it is appropriate for the FEC to extend its regulation to all activity the IRS defines as electioneering, IRS Revenue Ruling 2004-6 can be used as a resource in helping the FEC distinguish genuine issue advocacy from communications meant to influence federal elections. This Revenue Ruling lays out factors for consideration, but does not apply a rigid formula. For example, some of the factors that tend to indicate genuine issue advocacy include communications that are tied to a specific event outside the control of an organization, identify a public official only in their official capacity and not as a candidate, and are part of an ongoing campaign of advocacy on the same issue.

Deference should be given to protection of First Amendment‚s right of free speech. Where ambiguity in the law exists, election related regulation or restriction of speech or regulation of organizations not expressly provided for by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 or the Federal Election Campaign Act must be imposed by Congress, and not through an administrative rulemaking.

No new rules should be applied retroactively or during this election season, which is already underway. Nonprofits and the public need clarity and reasonable notice on all rules published by the FEC. All rules must be clear enough to avoid a chilling effect on genuine issue advocacy and nonpartisan voter mobilization activity.

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

This is bullsh*t from the assembled charities. Actually, their argument in favor of open political discourse, followed to its logical outcome, means that CFR itself is unconstitutional. However, the charities here are in self-defense mode, and did not think the matter through at that level.

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Please do it now.

Actually, I see it a three fundamental flaws. 2 relate to the charities in that they are, as Congressman BillyBob pointed out in self-defense mode and they believe that Congress should uphold the First Amendment (naive people, believing that Congress supports the First Amendment. Free Speech is now reserved ONLY for the ruling class, NOT the common folk!!!).

However, the part about IRS regulations relates to the announcement earlier this year that the IRS would begin investigating private organization newsletters to determine if they are in violation of CFR rules/regulations. IMO, the charities are beginning to wake-up to the fact that CFR, as enforced by the FEC and now the IRS, will have a considerable effect on their ability to communicate their message. The reality is that CFR has erased the past 300 years of this country and put us back to the time of King George's rule.

Boston Tea Party, anyone?

In 2000, 2001, and 2002, the liberals were pushing for a state income tax in Tennessee.

One of the many methods of protest was sending a tea bag to the offices of the state legislators.

Along with many other phone calls and letters, circling the capitol while honking our horns, and holding rallies at the capitol steps we finally were able to pressure the legislator to stop the efforts.

With CFR we are in a worse situation where the law has been pass but the opportunity to enforce it has not yet arrived.

We need to get Congress to put a stop to this nonsense so that this law will stop abridging the freedom of speech.

I request that all citizens concerned about our freedoms please share your opinions with your Senators and Representative. Please ask you Congressman to support H.R. 3801, the First Amedment Restoration Act, which removes the advertising restrictions.

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.