Skip to comments.Republicans Succeed in Supporting the Restriction of Free Speech with Passage of 527 Legislation
Posted on 04/07/2006 1:42:31 PM PDT by SittinYonder
Washington, D.C. - Following the unfortunate passage of the highly contested 527 legislation (H.R. 513) that will dramatically reduce First Amendment protections of political speech, David Keating, Executive Director of the Club for Growth, the nations leading free-market advocacy organization with over 35,000 members, made the following statement:
Passage of this Republican-sponsored legislation is nothing more than an outrageous assault on the First Amendment. The House Republicans may think they have made a wise political move, but subverting the Constitution in an attempt to make political gains is inexcusable and will shut down a crucial way to support the policies they profess to endorse.
Legislators arent satisfied with their ability to control who votes for them through their partisan gerrymanders, but now want to control who says how much and when about their performance in office.
Clearly, this is just a first step in completely shutting down any praise or criticism of Congress. If politicians have the power to do this to 527s, they also have the power to regulate speech by any other nonprofit group or business association.
Rules [Committee] ranking member Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., criticized Republicans for focusing solely on 527 groups and not broadening the debate to 501c3 and 501c4 groups, also named for their tax code designation, which also enjoy campaign finance loopholes.
I think you are missing a big part of this, she said, As soon as you try to pass anything, loopholes appear. Slaughter called it a grave mistake to ignore other groups and asked House Administration Chairman Ehlers, whose committee has jurisdiction over the bill, if Congress was likely to enter into a similar debate on 501©s in the near future. We just might, Ehlers said.
Posted by Andrew Roth at April 5, 2006 07:17 PM |
What will be next?
Link to the vote tally:
Here are the brave House Republicans who voted NO on HR 513:
Does this effect TCFG? I send them a little every month and don't pay too much attention to their newsletters.
Call it an "Incumbent Protection Act" and it all begins to make sense.
This is just the predictable outcome of McCain-Feingold. Once you legalize the suppression of free speech, whoever is in power gets to determine who gets to speak. It will get worse and worse no matter who is in charge.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Yep, they can whine all they want. Those who wanted CFR now have to deal with the fallout. CFR was bull crap and so is this.
All this did was restrict George Soros....McCain Feingold already stabbed free speech in the heart.
("Conservative" my @ss.)
Of course, it didn't start with the First Amendment. And it won't stop at free speech. The Bill of Rights is now a laundry list to the federal government.
They are alienating their base and are too stupid to realize it....
I hope so. I'd rather have gridlock than Democrat-lite. Give me a conservative President who knows how to use the veto and doesn't believe in making deals.
The greatest actual achievement of the Contract With America was shutting down the government, and they were too weak to continue it.
Pence/Paul in '08...
Bottom line, we don't want to make criminals out of non-citizen law-breakers, but we do want to make criminals out of citizen political speech participants unless they are members of Big Media.
Makes me wonder what in the world is going on with Michael Burgess, my Rep:
He used to be a reliable conservative, when he hadn't been in D.C. so long...
Wait a minute...!
I'm getting more and more libertarian every day the GOP is in power.
I think the answer is, "Who know?" This is also from Club for Growth's blog:
527 Bill -- Ball of Confusion
For many years I worked on tax policy, and as we all know the tax laws are really complicated. Well, I can tell you this, I long for the day of dealing with simple and clear tax laws. Our speech laws, which we try to parse out on a daily basis, make the tax laws look clear by comparison. And the IRS does a much better job with its forms and instructions than the various speech regulators around the country.
Now House Republicans voted to make the speech laws even worse. They should be ashamed. Yes, the attack on the First Amendment was horrible. The pain is compounded by a bill that raises a huge volume of questions about what it means exactly, and the lawyers have only started to try to figure it out.
Allison Hayward looks at one piece of it, and Bob Bauer begins to examine it too.
Here is just one paragraph of Bauers analysis on one aspect of this bill. Youll get the idea:
And to go with the ambiguities in these formulations, there is an additional restriction on any control, or material participation in the direction of the [initiative] organization, by any Federal officeholder, or candidate, or national political party, or their agents, who are also prohibited from soliciting contributions for the initiative committee, or directing their disbursements. None of these terms are defined. And it is not clear whether the definitions adopted in the law, for other purposes, of the terms solicit, direct, or control, are meant to be used in interpreting these new restrictions.
Oh, and by the way, the bill takes effect upon enactment, so there isnt even any time for the FEC to write rules to tell us what Congress meant by this stupid bill.
There's a lot of that going around.
I've been back and forth filling in the blanks _________/________ in '08. I've finally come down to this: Coburn/Cain in '08.
Shame, shame, shame!
In hear ya'. Mitt Romney's coerced healthcare bill almost convinced me to become massunenrolledguy. I'm going to be a skunk at the MASSGOP Convention.
"None of the above is acceptable" should be on every ballot.
Not until the LP gets it's collective (insult intended) head out of its arse and tosses out the anti-war communists they've allowed in.
Either stick to your principles, or stop pretending.
How does a party "allow" people to vote for them? The Libertarian are a good protest vote, nothing more. As the biggest third-party other than Green, their growth can be easily measured.
We really really really need to make sure the Republicans are put back in power in the House later this year.
And that's the rub, isn't it? I used to vote for LP candidates in the 90s when they were people I agreed with.
In Georgia, I have three choices: Dem, GOP or LP. None of them seem like choices any more, except some of the primary GOP candidates (Herman Cain, for example).
Libertarianism is probably the sanest political philosophy out there. The big flaw is that the LP seems to have forgotten what all it entails.
See, not all New York politicians suck.
They don't care.
They know that all they have to do is go, "Boo! What are you going to do, vote for Hillary?", and "the base" will once again hold it's nose and vote "R".
They think they OWN our votes. And so far I've seen NOTHING to suggest that they are mistaken.
I know a man here in Eureka Ca who put $550,000.00 of his own money in his 527 to help defeat Tom Daschle of South Dakota. I'll ask him how he feels about this the next time I see him or his wife...
They are alienating their base and are too stupid to realize it...."
Do you really believe that?
I think that Ill take any ticket from the NO list above (other than Fosella/Mack). If "R" doesnt come up with a ticket that represents the voting character of those above then my vote will be going elsewhere...
They have no base except for a "base ick need to be in power". Whatever or whomever they have to stick it to to remain in power, or gain some, they will stick. Sometimes we get a kiss beforehand, sometimes the first notice is a sharp pain between the shoulderblades.
I remember when the biggest thing the Repukelikunds griped about the Libertarians was the open border policy. Now they are wanting open borders, go figure.