Posted on 09/06/2006 8:08:22 AM PDT by SmithL
Bloggers are pounding the keyboards over a new campaign regulation that they point to as limiting free speech.
The provision prevents many advocacy groups from naming candidates in advertisements aired on television or radio.
"It's wrong, it's unAmerican, and it's the single best argument against either McCain or Feingold running for President in 2008," wrote Knoxville's Glenn Reynolds, author of the popular blog www.instapundit.com.
And Blount County blogger SayUncle, www.saysuncle.com, is offering free advertising space in defiance of the new regulation.
At issue is a new provision that bans mentioning a candidate's name in broadcast advocacy advertisements. The ban kicks in when general elections are 60 days away, or 30 days before a primary.
Many bloggers have referred to the legislation as the "Incumbent Protection Act."
And the legislation has drawn fire from a wide variety of groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Civil Liberties Union.
It was part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold act, named after sponsors Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
"The Act regulates issue advocacy by creating a new term in federal election law, 'electioneering communication' - political advertisements that 'refer' to a clearly identified federal candidate and are broadcast within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election," according to the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service.
The research service also notes that, "Generally, they may not be funded from union or corporate treasuries."
That has bloggers buzzing.
Franklin blogger Bill Hobbs, www.billhobbs.com, had this to say: "In addition to forming a '527,' named for the section of the IRS tax code under which they are organized, here's another suggestion for groups wishing to continue running commercials criticizing candidates by name: Make the ads, then upload them to YouTube, and spread them via blogs."
And Knoxville blogger Preston Taylor Holmes, www.sixmeatbuffet.com, wrote: "Why was this bill supported by both parties? Because they're cut from the same clothe. It's like the NBA All-Star game - they wear different uniforms, but they're really on the same team - the team of the incumbency."
SayUncle is part of a loose-knit group of bloggers from across the country taking issue with the provision.
On his blog on the right rail under "categories," he has created a page to archive his postings on the issue called "Incumbent Protection Act."
"Many more bloggers have signed up to stick it to the incumbent protection act," he writes in one posting.
BINGO!
Wow, I agree with the lefties on something. *pinching self*
I am still awake!
I think I'll start a blog just so I can break this stupid, fascist law.
They can pry this keyboard from my cold, dead hands.
And signed into law by George W. Bush.
Didn't SCOTUS make some ruling on McCain-Fiengold that basically said it isn't unconstitutional to limit speech in this manner? And didn't Bush sign this stupid law into existence instead of vetoing like he should have? So does this mean those of us who do mention a candidates name will face prosecution by the federal government?
Almost like the Nam never ended.
But justice in their case.
Probably. Yet another law I plan on blatantly violating if given a chance.
No, the other one.
Oh, never mind.
"They can pry this keyboard from my cold, dead hands."
I suspect the feds will threaten the carriers directly instead of thousand of bloggers getting the web carriers to stop the blogs in question.
I am probably putting that wrong. let's try this...what good is your keyboard if it has no access to the net?
Great idea. The Feds need to crack down on dangerous criminals like you. ;-)
Then you are an enemy of the State and a danger to our Republic. How dare you even suggest to break federal law by criticizing an elected government representative, I mean candidate, in an attempt to subvert a free election in this country! You must be taken for re-education immediately.
[ / sarc ]
What scares me is that scenario may very well unfold.
It might. The way things are going, it wouldn'tbe a surprise. The question is, are we going to do anything about it.
And declared constitutional by The Supreme Court of the United States.
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.