Posted on 07/23/2007 6:30:32 PM PDT by indigo5
If you consider yourself an expert in election law and can prove they - or we - are pacs, then please define your argument more concisely than "the laws are what they are".
No offense, but that statement, to me at least, has the exact same impact as "sure as the sun will shine", or "and that's the way it is".
I'm not an attorney, so if someone's going to interpert the law for my benefit, I'd like to see exactly how he arrives at his conclusions, where he gets his data, who has opined in a similar manner, and if that person were a judge.
Again, no offence, just qualify your statement, please.
Megadittos to that, Jim.
Meanwhile, sedition and treason are not protected as free speech.
That’s the ‘controlling legal authority’ that should apply to political speech.
And Congress.
Eventually, after saying their primary purpose is to get Democrats elected, you have to take them at their word.
Nope. What’s sauce for a KOmmie will eventually be sauce for a FReeper.
Sure, they’re different, take paid ads, a collection of morons,...
BUT, it has nothing to do with rules, right/wrong, paid ads, etc.
It has to do with controlling speech that someone doesn’t like and when that is the goal, there are plenty of liberals that would like FR shut down.
Its exactly the same as gun control, its not about guns its about control!
If they can regulate the KOS kool-aid kids they can regulate FReeRepublic and if you can regulate something you can ban it!
No tax, No regulation, No way!
I think we ALL agree that the FEC should STEP OFF of internet sites. The question posed here is whether the leftist idiots who cry about campaign reform will be held to their own standards. Kos is not a site, it’s a cancer.
When you stick to your principles even when those violating them are targeting your enemies, it only makes said principles stronger.
-Eric
You miss my point. I don’t want liberal idiots held to any freaking standard for speech, even if its their standards.
If you accept those rules for KOS and the DUcks you have to accept them for FreeRepublic.
The object of regulation is to control with the final goal of banning it.
This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together. We happily embrace centrists like NDN's Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean, conservatives like Martin Frost and Brad Carson, and liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama. Liberal? Yeah, we're around here and we're proud. But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory.Summary: DailyKos is explicitly an arm of the DemocRat Party. Compare to FR, where RINOs are blasted with as much venom as Pelosi, Reid or Teddy K. That admission might change a few minds on this thread.
43 posted on 07/24/2007 4:24:36 AM EDT by RightOnTheLeftCoast
IMHO you make the case that DailyKos is explicitly in violation of the law as written, in a way that FreeRepublic is not. Nice work. But . . .FR is pretty damn active in supporting candidates, publicizing campaign activities, mustering shows of activist support. Once the general election starts, FR will certainly be aggressive enough in supporting the Republican candidate.
Jim Robinson owns this site, sets the rules, moderates (or his “agents” do) the discussions. So it is not just a non-partisan bulletin board.
If you don’t think the Democrats can make an argument out of that, then you underestimate them.
25 posted on 07/23/2007 11:04:54 PM EDT by Maceman
The reality is that, from the perspective of the First Amendment, there's not a dime's worth of difference between FR and The New York Times, or between The New York Times and the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. They are all organizations run by people, and they are all entitled to freedom of speech and of the press - meaning that they can spend all the money they can get their hands on running printing presses, paying reporters and so forth, or even going on speaking tours - whether or not they are able to make a profit by selling newspapers or selling advertising space in newspapers."Should the DailyKos be Subject to the Federal Election Commission?"That is, whether or not they are supported by voluntary donations, in whatever amount. From whatever source, so be that it is not tax money. The government has no business telling Americans how to vote.
And that is why Jim Robinson is correct:
Not only no, but hell no! The first amendment protects our God-given unalienable rights to free speech, free press, freedom to dissent and freedom of association. All of the campaign laws enacted by congress in violation of the first amendment should be repealed as unconstitutional and the FEC disbanded.13 posted on 07/23/2007 10:15:59 PM EDT by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
You make the case that going after DailyKos under McCain-Feingold would not justify going after FR under McCain-Feingold . . . but since McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional it would be lawless to go after anyone under McCain-Feingold.
hmmm... moveon.org needs to be checked out ...Lamont vs Lieberman... their guy was Lamont
Yes.
And I should be elected King of the FEC.
And then they shall all bow, and kiss my ring.
It's good to be the King.
I suspect they were supporters of CRF
I suspect they would be screeching for punishment and obedience to the letter of the law if the complaint had been filed against a conservative
But despite all that I stand with DK in demanding the complaint be ignored/withdrawn/dismissed.
Ah, the midget at dailykos find the ‘real world’ at last....(chuckle)
Be fine with me if Daily Kos is busted: irk enough of those screaming half-wits, and maybe we could get McCain-Feingold thrown out, reversed, or just plain written off the books.
Who do you think Russ Feingold is more in tune with, us or the Kos-mics??
Ping to my #50.
Did you ever read Terry Pratchett's The Last Continent? A native of the last-continent (fictionalized Oz) says they put their politicians in jail right after they're elected - it saves time.
Is the question “Should they be subject”, or “does the law subject them?”
The answer to the first question is no, for all the reasons stated here. We all have a right to say what we want, to support who we want, to do what we can to get the people we want elected.
The answer to the second question I believe is yes. I think they are in violation of the election laws as they are now unconstitutionally written.
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.