Posted on 03/24/2005 10:17:57 AM PST by coffee260
The Federal Election Commission is moving forward with plans to regulate political speech on the Internet. (See "The Coming Crackdown on Blogging" on CNETnews.com) Rightwing and leftwing bloggers alike have cried foul. No one seems to want political censorship on the Net. Yet we are getting it anyway. Why?
A videotape obtained by Ryan Sager of the New York Post provides a stunning answer to this question. It shows that the McCain-Feingold Act – which forms the legal basis for the FEC's current effort to muzzle bloggers – was pushed through Congress by fraudulent means.
In a March 17 article, Sager reveals that a group of non-profit foundations, including the Pew Charitable Trusts and George Soros' Open Society Institute, bankrolled an array of front groups whose purpose was to deceive Congress into thinking that millions of their constituents across America were clamoring for "campaign finance reform."
In fact, no one wanted "campaign finance reform" except for the very elites who perpetrated this fraud in the first place. Should the FEC succeed in curbing political speech on the Internet, the blame for this outrage can be laid directly at the feet of the Pew Charitable Trusts and its co-conspirators.
Fake Grassroots Movement
Sean P. Treglia, a former program officer of the Pew Charitable Trusts, claims that he masterminded the plan. In March of 2004, Treglia boasted of his achievement during a taped conference at USC's Annenberg School for Communication, where Treglia has served since September 2003 as "senior advisor for democracy initiatives," in which capacity he helps train journalists to cover – you guessed it – campaign finance issues.
Addressing an audience of journalists, academics and other experts, Treglia said, "I'm going to tell you a story that I've never told any reporter. Now that I'm several months away from Pew and we have campaign-finance reform, I can tell this story." (via New York Post)
According to Treglia, proponents of "campaign finance reform" faced a problem – Americans did not want the kind of "reform" they were proposing. The movement "had lost legitimacy inside Washington because they didn't have a constituency that would punish Congress if they didn't vote for reform," Treglia explained.
And so he devised a plan. Since the "reformers" had no constituency, they would simply create one – or rather, the illusion of one. They would use foundation money to buy "experts" and front groups across the nation, to generate outcries for "campaign finance reform." Some front groups were created from scratch. In other cases, existing non-profit groups were paid handsomely to climb on the "campaign finance reform" bandwagon.
Flush with foundation money, these front groups would beat their breasts unceasingly for "campaign finance reform," putting on an energetic show for a tiny audience of 100 Senators and 435 members of Congress. Says Treglia: "The target audience for all this activity was 535 people in Washington. The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot - that everywhere they looked, in academic institutions, in the business community, in religious groups, in ethnic groups, everywhere, people were talking about reform."
The Conspirators
The New York Post reports that, from 1994 to 2004, Pew and its allies dispensed $140 million to promote campaign finance "reform," of which 88 percent – a cool $123 million – came from just eight foundations, as follows: Pew Charitable Trusts ---------------------- $40.1 million Schumann Center for Media and Democracy ------------------ $17.6 million Carnegie Corporation of New York ------ $14.1 million Joyce Foundation ---------------------------- $13.5 million George Soros' Open Society Institute ---------------------- $12.6 million Jerome Kohlberg Trust ---------------------- $11.3 million Ford Foundation ------------------------------- $8.8 million John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation ------------------------ $5.2 million Recipients of this money included the Center for Public Integrity: the William J. Brennan Center for Justice; Democracy 21 and many more. Leftwing media organizations such as National Public Radio and American Prospect magazine also received payment in exchange for pushing "campaign finance reform." For more information on Pewgate corruption in media, see "Pewgate: Leftwing Journalists on the Take."
Media Cover-up
It is not yet clear whether mainstream media recieved Pewgate payoffs as well. However, they needed no encouragement to support McCain-Feingold. Major news organizations were among the primary beneficiaries of the bill, which regulates the political speech of unions, non-media corporations and grassroots political groups, while granting a "press exemption" to major media corporations.
On the videotape, Treglia tells a revealing anecdote about media collusion in the Pewgate scam. He says: "We had a scare. As the debate was progressing and getting pretty close, George Will stumbled across a report that we had done and attacked it in his column. And a lot of his partisans were becoming aware of Pew's role and were feeding him information. And he started to reference the fact that Pew had played a large role in this - that this was a liberal attempt to hoodwink Congress.
"But you know what the good news is from my perspective? Journalists didn't care… So no one followed up on the story. And so there was a panic there for a couple of weeks because we thought the story was going to begin to gather steam, and no one picked it up." See also, "John McCain Gets Soros Cash (by yours truly), John Fund's Wall Street Journal piece of March 21, "Astroturf Politics: How Liberal Foundations Fooled Congress into Passing McCain-Feingold," and "Pew Exposed" in today's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
You forgot Soros the Foreigner who should be stripped of his "citizenship" and sent back to Budapest instead of getting to live and run rampant in a country he had/has nothing to do with
Be serious. I couldn't even generate any enthusiasm on FR for a phone campaign to the Senators on the Senate Rules Committee, which oversees the FEC and could make a difference here.
The interest is close to zero.
If we had a decent sized interest, we could stop this thing in its tracks.
And once we've let it go into law, you guys don't have enough guns to overthrow the gov't.
Our best chance to win is to fight now, using the weapons our democracy provides. I believe in the Second Ammendment, but have little hope of victory on that front.
The Jews didn't fight back against the Nazis until it was too late and that was the Warsaw Ghetto.
You'd think that Americans would learn from the lessons of the past but they won't.
One freedom after another will fall and Americans will do nothing.
People will be imprisoned for their unpopular ideas and Americans will do nothing.
The guns will be outlawed and Americans will do nothing.
The UN will take over and Americans will do nothing.
Maybe a handful of us will make a stand, who knows. But the vast majority will watch TV and play video games and even cheer as the US flag is hauled down and the UN flag is raised.
I am more optimistic than you are, though I am also deeply concerned. I feel things could go either way, and I am going to fight as hard as I am able to help preserve our freedoms.
By the way, I am myself a Jewish American and well aware of the Nazi example. I too wish the Jews had fought earlier and am proud that in the Warsaw ghetto, at least, they did fight. But clearly, any fight by the Jews alone was hopeless, at any point.
Don't be so pessimistic, I say. We can win. Bush was elected twice, and it has made a difference, for all his faults. Goss is probably the best leader the CIA has had in decades. He may clean out that nest of Communists in there. (And there are good people in the CIA too---look at the plan to defeat the Taliban in Afgahnistan, that was CIA, but the agency is riddled with Communist sympathizers and has been for decades.) True, Goss may be defeated, but is is an excellent chance. This is a key fight! We have gotten by with a Commie-riddled CIA---we'll do much better without one. (By the way, Goss rec ently testified that we need secure borders.)
I criticize Bush heavily for supporting Arlen Specter and his complete failure on the border. I realize that Frist is a weakling, somehow the Left must have manouvered to get him in, because he's weak. People always doubted his strength, so why was he selected? RINOs influencing the process.
Hillary intended to be President in 2000, but the Internet (including right here!) stopped her. Now she aims for 2008. We still have a chance to beat her. Does it matter? Of course it does!
Look at this Minuteman thing. It's a great thing, and it could work. People giving of their valuable time, putting their bodies on the line.
Look at our soldiers. True, the Communists got a Marine in position to accuse Panneta, and another in position to bring unjustified charges. They are subversives. They will put an occassional person everywhere---even the Marines. But what about the Marines? Aren't they great? Don't you love them?
I'm sure you are a good guy. You've got your guns and I'm OK with that---that's your 2nd Ammendment Right, guranteeed by the Constitution. So far the NRA has done fairly well in national elections, so don't give up!
If you are willing to make a final stand with your guns, as a defiant gesture when the battle is lost, why not make many gestures now, while the battle is still on, while we have a chance?
Let this not be forgotten ping!
ping for posterity...
PING to Post #26
SF makes some good points.
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.