Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MoveOn Balks at Proposed FEC Rules Changes by Scaring Nonprofits (FEC Email Needs FReeping! NOW!)
Talon News ^ | April 2, 2004 | Jimmy Moore

Posted on 04/02/2004 9:27:16 AM PST by ElephantMan

SPARTANBURG, SC (Talon News) -- Liberal anti-Bush online political activist group MoveOn.org sent a warning message to its members this week regarding the upcoming ruling by the Federal Election Commission about the legality of so-called 527 groups accepting soft campaign contributions to run political ads.

"The Republican National Committee is pressing the Federal Election Commission to issue new rules that would cripple groups that dare to communicate with the public in any way critical of President Bush or members of Congress," MoveOn.org charged in an e-mail to supporters.

In the e-mail, MoveOn.org attempts to scare "conservative, progressive, labor, religious, secular, social service, charitable, educational, civic participation, [and] issue-oriented" groups into believing the rule changes will be detrimental to their cause by alleging that the ruling will prevent them from speaking out on issues.

However, the Republican National Committee, along with President George W. Bush's reelection campaign, has filed a complaint with the FEC over the connection of specific 527 groups like MoveOn.org and the campaign of likely Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry.

Jill Holtzman Vogel, chief counsel for the RNC, said evidence of coordination between MoveOn.org and other Democratic-supporting 527 groups and the Kerry campaign in violation of the new campaign finance law could not be clearer.

"Senator Kerry, who supported the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, is now the beneficiary of the single largest conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws in history," she explained in issuing the complaint to the FEC.

In fact, the Massachusetts senator explained when he voted for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that he supported it because he wanted "to eliminate altogether the capacity of soft money to play the role that it does in our politics."

Yet, MoveOn.org is now operating illegally as an extension of the Kerry campaign because they accept soft money from corporations and unions, which represents an evasion of the ban on large, unregulated contributions in the new campaign finance law, critics argue.

For example, MoveOn.org has been giving Kerry plenty of free campaign ads by running a relentless schedule of political attack ads against Bush for months using donations from liberal billionaires such as George Soros and others.

Nevertheless, MoveOn.org tells its supporters that any action conducted by the FEC regarding donations to various MoveOn.org fundraising efforts will not be traced back to the specific donors.

Blaming unnamed "operatives" in the nation's capitol for "displaying a terrifying disregard for the values of free speech and openness which underlie our democracy," MoveOn.org states the FEC complaint by the RNC and the Bush campaign is a blatant attempt to squelch attacks against Bush.

"Essentially, they are willing to pay any price to stop criticism of Bush," the e-mail continued.

MoveOn.org is encouraging its members to send the FEC public comments along with the sender's full name, e-mail address, and mailing address to Acting Assistant General Counsel Mai T. Dinh by April 9 at politicalcommitteestatus@fec.gov.

In fact, MoveOn.org has requested to see a copy of the messages sent to the FEC.

"We'd love to see a copy of your public comment," MoveOn.org explains, although the group did not indicate whether it wants to receive comments that would support the new rules changes.

Nevertheless, the leftist political group writes, "Please e-mail us a copy [of your comments to the FEC] at FECcomment@moveon.org."

The e-mail lists the names and telephone numbers of the e-mail recipient's two U.S. senators as well as the recipient's U.S. congressman.

Charging the Bush administration with orchestrating an "unholy alliance" with the FEC, MoveOn.org announced the formation of the FEC Working Group to identify "examples of specific consequence for nonprofit groups."

"It's outrageous," MoveOn.org opines.

Nonprofit groups, MoveOn.org warns, who advocate positions for or against congressmen or the president's positions on the issues would be deemed as political groups and be subjected to the laws imposed on them.

"Such changes would cripple the ability of groups to raise and spend funds in pursuit of their mission and could be so ruinous that organizations would be forced to back away from meaningful conversations about public policies that affect millions of Americans," MoveOn.org states.

Groups that would be affected, MoveOn.org adds, include 501(c)(4) advocacy groups, 501(c)(3) charitable groups, labor unions, trade associations, environmental groups, 501 (c)(6) groups, and 527 political action committee groups, such as MoveOn.org.

Also included in the list of affected organizations, according to MoveOn.org, are religious groups that pass out voting record pamphlets, voter registration groups, pro-life groups spreading communication about a lawmaker's position on abortion and civil rights groups.

A public hearing by the FEC is scheduled to take place on April 14-15. A final decision on the rules changes will be made by mid-May and would go into effect by July.

MoveOn.org states the changes could be made retroactive to January 2003.

"It's clear that these rules would immediately silence thousands of groups, of all types, who have raised questions and criticisms of any kind about the Bush Administration, its record and its policies," MoveOn.org concludes, alleging this is nothing more than an election year ploy by the Bush campaign to silence his critics.

If the new rules changes are allowed to go into effect, groups like MoveOn.org will no longer be allowed to use soft campaign contributions to attack the president or any other elected official.

Copyright © 2004 Talon News -- All rights reserved



TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004election; 2004electionbias; 501c3; 527; bushhassers; bushhaters; campaignads; campaignfinance; campaignlaws; catholiclist; caucasuslist; cfr; clintoncronies; communists; democrats; dirtypolitics; dirtytricks; election2004; electionads; electionlaws; fec; financereform; foreigncontributions; fundraising; georgesoros; irs; johnkerry; kerrycampaign; lyingliars; lyingsonsof; mccainfeingold; mediabias; moneytrail; morondotorg; moveon; moveondotorg; moveonorg; overseasdonations; presidentbush; rattricks; smearcampaign; socialists; softmoney; soros; taxcheats; taxes; taxexempt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last
Urgent ~ FReep The FEC ~ Stop MoveOn.org!

FEC Email: politicalcommitteestatus@fec.gov

Let the FEC know that you are opposed to MoveOn.org's blatant support of the John Kerry campaign and urge them to implement the rule changes they are considering and no longer allow MoveOn.org to use soft campaign contributions to attack the president or any other elected official--and to make the change retroactive to January 1, 2004.

MoveOn.org: FECcomment@moveon.org (For you trouble makers who want to CC MoveOn.org and let them know what you sent to the FEC!)

1 posted on 04/02/2004 9:27:17 AM PST by ElephantMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
Rank Location Receipts Donors/Avg Freepers/Avg Monthlies
17 Indiana 120.00
2
60.00


55.00
5

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

2 posted on 04/02/2004 9:27:58 AM PST by Support Free Republic (Freepers post from sun to sun, but a fundraiser bot's work is never done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElephantMan
bookmark for later....
3 posted on 04/02/2004 9:32:09 AM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElephantMan
It is about time the Republican party is growing a Back bone, I am sick of these Liberals passing laws and we are the only ones who follow it. Of course this will go to some liberal activist judge who will eventually throw it out. The campaign finance law is joke and I am still sick over the fact the supreme court didn't overturn it. Actually, It should have never had to make it there.
4 posted on 04/02/2004 9:44:40 AM PST by MeSpikeLibs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElephantMan
The Republican National Committee is pressing the Federal Election Commission to issue new rules that would cripple groups that dare to communicate with the public in any way critical of President Bush or members of Congress

And they're right. CFR was mean to keep the current power structure intact while giving the people the impression that they're doing something about corruption. Now that the Libs are getting bit by it, maybe they'll fight to have it repealed.

5 posted on 04/02/2004 9:51:08 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElephantMan
Here's my letter to the FEC (cc'd to MoveOn.org of course):

Dear Mai T. Dinh:

I am deeply concerned about the flagrant violation of both the letter and spirit of the recently passed campaign finance rules by certain, specific 527 organizations, in particular, MoveOn.org.

MoveOn.org has raised mammoth sums of so-called soft money. In some instances, individual donors have contributed sums far in excess of the $2000.00 campaign contribution limit. In one case, 17 million dollars was contributed by on individual, a partisan activist on the public record as saying that their primary focus in life is to "defeat President Bush."

This is an extremely dangerous circumvention of long standing campaign contribution limits, which, truthfully, I would be in favor of lifting all together, for all participants in exchange for requiring total transparency. If the public knew who gave how much to who, that would be fine with me. That, however, is not how the rules are currently written and, as such, enforcement of the rules must be consistent for all parties and individuals.

In addition to being obviously apparent to anyone who is exposed to the illegal commercials, there is a growing body of convincing evidence that the John Kerry campaign is working closely with MoveOn.org--a blatant violation of the rules. I would encourage the FEC to vigorously pursue this evidence in a timely fashion and impose the appropriate sanctions, fines and punishments as warranted.

I would also encourage the committee to clarify the rules, instate or reinstate them as appropriate, and move in an expedient fashion to cause MoveOn.org and other specific organizations found violating the rules to cease and desist immediately and sanction them as the committee deems appropriate.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

6 posted on 04/02/2004 9:52:38 AM PST by ElephantMan (sorry, no smart a$$ tag line today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Support Free Republic
bump
7 posted on 04/02/2004 9:57:09 AM PST by not-alone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MeSpikeLibs
I am still sick over the fact the supreme court didn't overturn it. Actually, It should have never had to make it there

I know, I never felt so helpless as when that decision was handed down. A serious encroachment to the First Ammendment had taken place and the court of last resort, the jurists we depend on to protect our rights as enumerated in the Constitution, failed us. Miserably.

I wonder to this day, since they are charged to protect the Constitution and there is no question that free speech was abridged by that decision--is there not anything we can do?

Sick as well...

8 posted on 04/02/2004 10:00:18 AM PST by ElephantMan (sorry, no smart a$$ tag line today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MeSpikeLibs
Amen to that!

I didn't favor the law at all. What a sick, hypocritical joke that MoveOn is squirming now just because the law many of their members wanted might apply to them!

If no one wants to have to play by the rules anymore, we might as well just pack it in.

Very discouraging.
9 posted on 04/02/2004 10:14:47 AM PST by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ElephantMan
Anyone get the impression that Stalin has relatives on the FEC?
10 posted on 04/02/2004 10:16:29 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ElephantMan
Don't worry. What MoveOn and the other groups are doing is clearly illegal. If Republicans tried to do the same, we would be mercilessly burned by the press. There would be calls for Bush's resignation, impeachment, special prosecutors etc..

But once the FEC and Courts say that what they are doing is not illegal, then the Republicans are free to do the same thing. And we can easily out spend them. One more trap the Democrats are walking into. IMO

11 posted on 04/02/2004 10:33:07 AM PST by bayourod (We can depend on Scary Kerry's imaginary foreign leaders to protect us from terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bayourod
BTTT!
12 posted on 04/02/2004 10:41:49 AM PST by JDoutrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ElephantMan; talleyman
Bump! (Will freep later- thanks!)
13 posted on 04/02/2004 11:01:51 AM PST by talleyman (Never question the patriotism of Democrats - there's none to question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElephantMan
I sent a (hopefully) well-reasoned letter to the FEC saying I believe MoveOn and the other anti-Bush 527's amount to a de facto campaign fund for Kerry and a clear violation of the intent of CFR. I copied MoveOn too for their enjoyment.
14 posted on 04/02/2004 11:35:15 AM PST by Sender (Support Free Republic...become a monthly donor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeSpikeLibs
No matter what the ruling, this will bite the Rats. The Rats do not get $1,000 and under contributions from families and business-owners like the Republicans do - they get their funds from wealthy liberal individuals and special-interest groups.

CFR is actually turning out to be a good thing.

15 posted on 04/02/2004 11:40:10 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (EEE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bayourod
But once the FEC and Courts say that what they are doing is not illegal

What if the FEC rules that it's in fact illegal? Then what happens?

16 posted on 04/02/2004 11:43:37 AM PST by ServesURight (FReecerely Yours,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ServesURight
What if the FEC rules that it's in fact illegal? Then what happens?

Team Kerry would have to buy his own ads from his own pockets.

17 posted on 04/02/2004 11:46:58 AM PST by BlkConserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ElephantMan
Geez, CFR was great when it was only going to hurt Republicans, wasn't it?

Now that the rules are being enforced on the leftists, it's a "free speech" issue.

Hey, moveon, you tipped your hand when you released your ad about Kerry's tax plan BEFORE THE KERRY CAMPAIGN DID.

This is illegal. But it doesn't matter, leftists are ENTITLED to break the law because their cause is so just.
18 posted on 04/02/2004 11:47:08 AM PST by MrB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ServesURight
What if the FEC rules that it's in fact illegal?

Rule against a leftist org? Yeah, right.

19 posted on 04/02/2004 11:50:28 AM PST by MrB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MeSpikeLibs
I wonder if the RNC included the conservative groups which run similar ads in their FEC complaint.
20 posted on 04/02/2004 11:52:35 AM PST by CalKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ElephantMan
Have you thought about the fact that this will also cripple the Club for Growth, Grassfire, The Rifle Association, Right to Life, and a host of conservative groups.

Free speech for me but not for thee doesn't work too well.
21 posted on 04/02/2004 12:57:25 PM PST by Gen. Longstreet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ServesURight
"What if the FEC rules that it's in fact illegal? Then what happens "

The press and Democrats will scream that the law is unfair. We magnaminoulsly consent to have it repealed. Then we out-spend them ten to one in soft money ads.

22 posted on 04/02/2004 1:59:52 PM PST by bayourod (We can depend on Scary Kerry's imaginary foreign leaders to protect us from terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CalKat
That's CalKat. Never take a position that supports the RNC but defend the DNC. We get it.
23 posted on 04/02/2004 2:32:37 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Peach
And what position was I taking? Perhaps you can find a community college in your area and learn to read.
24 posted on 04/02/2004 2:37:45 PM PST by CalKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CalKat
Since the day you have joined this forum you have yet to make ONE post that defends the RNC or the conservative position.

Moby....
25 posted on 04/02/2004 2:39:24 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Peach
blah blah blah

Peachy....
26 posted on 04/02/2004 2:41:05 PM PST by CalKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CalKat
I wonder if the RNC included the conservative groups which run similar ads in their FEC complaint.

It's so interesting you can't name ONE conservative group that is running a similar ad.

27 posted on 04/02/2004 2:41:56 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ElephantMan
Interesting that Move On did an ad supporting Senator Ketchup's "economic plan" (in some detail) before Senator Ketchup released it. But I'm sure there is no coordination whatsoever, right?
28 posted on 04/02/2004 2:42:24 PM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
What makes you think I can't name one conservative group that is running a similar ad? I could name Citizens United, which is running the Kerry "priceless" ad. You make so many assumptions, and you know what they say about that...
29 posted on 04/02/2004 2:45:32 PM PST by CalKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bayourod
A friend of mine sent this to me via email a couple of weeks ago. I haven't been able to confirm it, but it sure is interesting:

Link Between Moveon And Kerry?

Do identical donation pages tracking unique team numbers show relationship between John Kerry's campaign and MoveOn.org?

Judge Napolitano on The big Story on Fox News just showed a Letter from Moveon asking for contributions to John Kerry with a link. That link ended in Team=437 at the end of the link.

Now go to: http://www.Johnkerry.com and highlight the "Make a Contribution Link": /contribute3.johnkerry.co...l?team=138 It says team=138.

The Donation pages are identical in nature, form, and function in the sense they track the donations back to moveon.

Therefore they are tracking donations specific from Moveon thus applying a causal relationship between the two of them.

It is interesting that the PAC donation section on moveon no longer has a team number attached, but the letter shown on Fox did.

How did they get assigned a team number for contributions of Team Number 437 if they are not in a relationship?

Looking at the HTML source and at the link at the end of this sentence: Contribute to Senator Kerry's Presidential campaign here. It still shows a "team=349" URL like this:

Contribute to Senator Kerry's Presidential campaignhere

So, one has to ask the question: Who assigned Moveon.org the "Team=349" for use on their PAC page?

30 posted on 04/02/2004 2:48:06 PM PST by LisaMalia (In Memory of Sgt. James W. Lunsford..KIA 11-29-69 Binh Dinh S. Vietnam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CalKat
I realize this is a nuance you will not understand, but from the article above:

"Jill Holtzman Vogel, chief counsel for the RNC, said evidence of coordination between MoveOn.org and other Democratic-supporting 527 groups and the Kerry campaign in violation of the new campaign finance law could not be clearer."

There is not similar coordination between the Bush administration and Citizens United. BIG difference.

31 posted on 04/02/2004 3:09:57 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ElephantMan
Sent my e-mail to Mai T. Dinh!

DD
32 posted on 04/02/2004 3:57:27 PM PST by DiamondDon1 (Card carrying Member VRWC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElephantMan
"Nevertheless, MoveOn.org tells its supporters that any action conducted by the FEC regarding donations to various MoveOn.org fundraising efforts will not be traced back to the specific donors."

Does anyone really believe this? After all the missing documents from the clinton administration?
33 posted on 04/02/2004 3:59:59 PM PST by Freedom2specul8 (Please pray for our troops.... http://anyservicemember.navy.mil/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach; CalKat
You truly don;t know WTF is going on...
34 posted on 04/02/2004 4:04:53 PM PST by sauropod (Life is too short to read articles written by Upper West Side twits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
You sound so intelligent when you talk like that.

We have seen the direct linkage between MoveOn.org and the Kerry campaign.

Why don't you provide a similar linkage between the Bush admin. and the RNC group mentioned by CalKat, if you can? You can't, of course.
35 posted on 04/02/2004 4:27:44 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ElephantMan
Why don't we see Johnny McCain raising hell over the violations of his pet C.F.R. law?
36 posted on 04/02/2004 4:35:59 PM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElephantMan
Even a stopped clock is right 2 times a day.

If (a great big IF, here) the Bush Administration is, indeed, trying to increase the restrictions on political speech, then they should stop, now.

I don't like Moveon.org at all. I'm convinced that they are a Communist front for the far left of the Democrats.


But, if they aren't allowed by law to criticise the President or the local dog catcher, then neither am I or you.


The campaign finance laws have already gone too far.


Wouldn't it be great if the Communists spent more of their money and the results were to kill McCain/Feingold?
37 posted on 04/02/2004 4:45:59 PM PST by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
oops, "neither *are* you and I..."
38 posted on 04/02/2004 4:47:53 PM PST by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Peach
*Yawn*
39 posted on 04/02/2004 4:49:18 PM PST by sauropod (Life is too short to read articles written by Upper West Side twits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ElephantMan
There is a flip side to all this. Republican groups are being reigned in till the matter is decided.

It seems to me to be a win win fork manuver.

If the movement is stopped, lots of rat money and hopes are down the drain.

If it is allowed to continue, untold numbers of Republican groups including an unknown number right here can be formed and there is no telling the havoc on the rats that will result.
40 posted on 04/02/2004 4:57:01 PM PST by bert (Save People.... Kill Terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
"have it repealed"

Maybe that was the plan! LOL!
41 posted on 04/02/2004 5:51:38 PM PST by CyberAnt (The 2004 Election is for the SOUL of AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
That's how the leftist's respond when they can't respond. ROFLMAO
42 posted on 04/02/2004 6:18:14 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ElephantMan
There is something we can do ~ break the law.

Clearly the law is unjust. Obviously it is unenforceable or www.moveon.org would not have gotten away with what it did so far.

Unenforceable and unjust laws must not be respected by honest people.

43 posted on 04/02/2004 6:22:01 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ElephantMan
Sent to FEC, I wouldnt give the moveon hags the time of day.
44 posted on 04/02/2004 10:13:25 PM PST by Samurai_Jack (Pacifism by its nature invites escalating acts of war on anyone who practices it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MeSpikeLibs
The campaign finance law is joke and I am still sick over the fact the supreme court didn't overturn it. Actually, It should have never had to make it there.

I have a feeling (based on absolutely nothing) that what happened was Congress and the President got "cute" and thought I'll go along with this and the USSC will bail us out. Well the court(or some on the court) got tired of this kind of crap being laid at their doorstep for them to fix, so they ok'ed the law and on the ball is back in congress's side of the field.
Fortunately there is a little something called
First Amendment Restoration Act
http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/bills/?bill=5269186

First Amendment Restoration Act
Bill # H.R.3801

Original Sponsor:
Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD 6th)

Cosponsor Total: 52
(last sponsor added 03/30/2004)
2 Democrats
50 Republicans
(snip)
On February 11, 2004, Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, along with
several other members of The Liberty Caucus, introduced the "First Amendment Restoration Act" (H.R. 3801). This legislation would restore Americans' First Amendment rights by repealing sections of the McCain-Feingold law that forbid issue-advocacy groups, such as The Liberty Committee, Gun Owners of America, American Conservative Union, Concerned Women of America and the National Rifle Association, to inform their members about important issues and votes relative to incumbent candidates during the 30 and 60 days before primary and general elections.

So during that 30-60 day period when the U.S. Congress takes a vote on abortion, immigration, gun control, United Nations, taxes, treaties, etc., we won't be able to tell you about it without committing a federal crime and risking jail time! Even a simple
E-mail alert will violate the law!

McCain-Feingold, passed by Congress, signed by President Bush, and affirmed by the Supreme Court, muzzles the average American who doesn't have a high-priced lobbyist to represent his views in our nation's capital. Under the guise of "cleaning up our political process," incumbent politicians increase their job security by making it illegal for average Americans to participate.


45 posted on 04/02/2004 10:43:52 PM PST by Valin (Hating people is like burning down your house to kill a rat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ElephantMan; Peach; CalKat
Another proposition which could explain at least some of the results of today’s opinion is that the First Amendment right to spend money for speech does not include the right to combine with others in spending money for speech. Such a proposition fits uncomfortably with the concluding words of our Declaration of Independence: “And for the support of this Declaration, . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”(Emphasis added.) The freedom to associate with others for the dissemination of ideas--not just by singing or speaking in unison, but by pooling financial resources for expressive purposes--is part of the freedom of speech.

The dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia on BCFR.

46 posted on 04/03/2004 1:41:10 AM PST by WhiteyAppleseed (2 million defensive gun uses a year. Tell that to the Gun Fairy who'd rather leave you toothless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valin
Not only did someone get "cute" but as the law was written, Congress banned any money, hard and soft, in the context of this thread, but the Court made a statutory change and read any to mean "soft" money, trying to read into the word "any" money the kind of money that Congress was trying to limit with the rest of BCFR.

The dissenting opinion of Justice Kennedy:

The majority.s upholding §323(d) is all the more unsettling because of the way it ignores the Act as Congress wrote it. Congress said national parties "shall not solicit any funds for, or make or direct any donations to" §501(c) nonprofit organizations that engage in federal election activity or to §527 political committees. The Court, however, reads out the word "any" and construes the words "funds" and "donations" to mean "soft money funds" and "soft money donations". See ante, at 72 ("This construc- tion is consistent with the concerns animating Title I, whose purpose is to plug the soft-money loophole"). The Court's statutory amendment may be consistent with its anti-soft-money rationale; it is not, however, consistent with the plain and unavoidable statutory text Congress has given us. Even as construed by the Court, moreover, it is invalid.

The majority strains to save the provision from what must seem to it an unduly harsh First Amendment. It does so by making a legislative determination Congress chose not to make: to prefer hard money to soft money within the construct of national party relationships with nonprofit groups. Congress gave no indication of a prefer- ence to regulate either hard money or soft in this context. Rather, it simply proscribed all transfers of money between the two organizations and all efforts by the national parties to raise any money on the nonprofit groups' behalf. The question the Court faces is not which part of a text to

Cite as: 540 U. S. ____ (2003) 23 Opinion of KENNEDY, J.

sever and strike, but whether Congress can prohibit such transfers altogether. The answer, as the majority recognizes, is no. See ante, at 71 ("[P]rohibiting parties from donating funds already raised in compliance with FECA does little to further Congress' goal of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption of federal candidates and officeholders"). Though §323(f) in effect imposes limits on candidate contributions, it does not address federal candidate and officeholder contributions. Yet it is the possibility of federal officeholder quid pro quo corruption potential that animates Buckley's rule as it relates to Acts of Congress (as opposed to Acts of state legislatures). See 424 U. S., at 13 ("The constitutional power of Congress to regulate federal elections is well established"). When one recognizes that §§323(a), (b), (d), and (f) do not serve the interest the anticorruption rationale contemplates, Title I's entirety begins to look very much like an incumbency protection plan. See J. Miller, Monopoly Politics 84.101 (1999) (concluding that regulations limiting election fundraising and spending constrain challengers more than incumbents). That impression is worsened by the fact that Congress exempted its officeholders from the more stringent prohibitions imposed on party officials. Compare new FECA §323(a) with new FECA §323(e). Section 323(a) raises an inflexible bar against soft money solicitation, in any way, by parties or party officials. Section 323(e), in contrast, enacts exceptions to the rule for federal officeholders (the very centerpiece of possible corruption), and allows them to solicit soft money for various uses and organizations.

47 posted on 04/03/2004 1:57:30 AM PST by WhiteyAppleseed (2 million defensive gun uses a year. Tell that to the Gun Fairy who'd rather leave you toothless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: WhiteyAppleseed
Congress made clear with their passage of BCFR that it is only a first step, that they would be revisiting the issue to take a bigger bite out of the 1st Amendment.

FreeRepublic is currently trying to gather funds from freepers and lurkers to continue doing what we are doing, pooling our resources, our fortunes, to gather together and debate, to associate and to share ideas. What will happen when those who are arguing for a strict enforcement of the unconstitutional BCFR begin to feel the pinch from new restrictions already forecast by Congress?

48 posted on 04/03/2004 2:02:33 AM PST by WhiteyAppleseed (2 million defensive gun uses a year. Tell that to the Gun Fairy who'd rather leave you toothless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Valin
What part of BCFR makes it illegal for the NRA to inform me about issues 60 days before an election? You say that even an e-mail alert would violate a section of BCFR? I realize there is enough about the BCFR that if I hear correctly, even some in Congress had to have it explained to them. I'm in need of some explanation. Thank you.
49 posted on 04/03/2004 2:06:36 AM PST by WhiteyAppleseed (2 million defensive gun uses a year. Tell that to the Gun Fairy who'd rather leave you toothless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: WhiteyAppleseed; Valin
Would it be Section 203--banned: "communications that be received by 50,000 or more persons in the candidate's district."

The operative word being communications? Truly Orwellian.

50 posted on 04/03/2004 2:13:35 AM PST by WhiteyAppleseed (2 million defensive gun uses a year. Tell that to the Gun Fairy who'd rather leave you toothless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson