Question about CFR

myself | 2/13/02 | myself

[FRlurker]

Just a question here. Opponents of CFR claim it infringes on our First Amendment right to free speech. But the First Amendment only guarantees the right to speak, NOT the right to be heard. IOW, the amount of money you give to a PAC or individual candidate only affects the medium in which your speech is delivered, not the speech itself. So does Shays-Meehan and McCain-Feingold really infringe on your right to Free Speech? I welcome any respectful comments about this. No flaming, please.

[FRlurker]

Am I on the right track here, or totally off the mark? As you can tell, I am torn about CFR.

[Rodney King]

So it would therefore be OK for the government to ban printing presses?

[the bottle let me down]

Your argument is fine, if you take a very narrow view of the term "speech." This is not the view that Courts have adopted or that most people believe to be correct. However, even if your view of the term "speech" is correct, CFR is still unconstitutional.

The first amendment also protects the freedom of the press. Shays-Meehan and the other variants of CFR limit the ability of people to spend money to print and distribute material discussing politics and various candidates positions, unless the persons so doing are recognized news organizations.

Given the importance of pamphlets like Common Sense, it is clear that the Founders wouldn't have countenanced such restrictions.

[jgrubbs]

"unless the persons so doing are recognized news organizations."

And 99.9% of all of the recognized news organizations are supporters of the left.

[FRlurker]

No. But under CFR, the gov't. doesn't ban the medium (printing press), or the message the person is trying to give.

[Gothmog]

I believe in general the courts have determined that (simplistically put) money is speech. You can not restrict a person who has $1 miilion to spread a message to spending only $100,000. That is what is unconstitutional.

[KC_Conspirator]

The Supreme Court has already decided that adverstisements, flyers, and other means of distributed press equals free speech. CFR is a total violation of that as it prohibits it and is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Why are union PAC's not affected by this? And what does soft money have to do with banning ads 60 days before an election?

[Rensselaer]

Of course it limits free speech. If it did not, the government could simply ban any spending on newspapers, radio, or television, thus insulating itself from any serious criticism. Would it limit your right to travel if the government said you could not spend any money on gas or fuel to travel. Sure, you could travel, you'd just have to walk, ride a bike, or ride a horse. Of course that would restrict your freedom of travel. How about a law saying you couldn't give any money to a church? Soon, the church buildings would crumble. Pastors, reverends, and others would all have to work part-time on a volunteer basis. Churches could do no charity work requiring any expenditure of money. Of course that would violate freedom of religion, even though you'd be able to hold your religious beliefs.

[m1911]

Not even when they control who can use the airwaves 60 days before an election?

[alex]

In any case, it will be impossible to ban a unaffiliated for profit political newspaper/TV/broadcast radio funded by private contributions - which are currently spent on soft money to politcal parties.

There is even bonus here - if the newspaper would be any good we can charge for advertisement :).

[Grit]

CFR does not ban individual donations. It is NOT a free speech issue. Is that the only test for the first amendment issues: individuality?

[arthurus dot]

A right to be heard is not at issue here. If one asks to purchase space in the media with which to present his views the media may turn down the request. Both parties' right of free speech is preserved. When the media are not permitted to grant such a request and/or when one is not permitted to make that request (as per the bill at issue) then free speech is denied.

[rond]

Like you, I'm torn on CFR. Yes, the amounts necessary to wage a serious campaign for the House, the Senate or any other statewide office are ridiculous. Yes, there should be a way to staunch the flow of cash to both parties, without limiting the freedom of a donor's expression. No, I don't think the current legislation is the cure, or even a good medicine to treat the corrupting disease.

A couple of points that might be off-point, but seem worthy of discussion:

•Radio and television stations have been required to sell political-ad time to candidates at the lowest unit rate. Stations aren't getting as much for the spots as they could receive (and if they could, imagine how much campaigns would cost). Isn't this a violation of the stations' ability to be for-profit businesses?

•Because the FCC regulates (and supposedly watchdogs) the radio and television stations, why can't it require the stations to set aside blocks of time for candidates to address issues? This would eliminate the current need for big bucks; could lessen the distortions created by ad campaigns; and might bolster public discussion and debate on the issues.

[E=MC²]

But the First Amendment only guarantees the right to speak, NOT the right to be heard.

Ah...so it is fair for the leftist media to subtly push the party line in every newscast, editorial and situation comedy and force the viewpoint hated by the media to speak on orange crates on street corners? The only way conservatives can refute the steady stream of leftist slant cascading from the entire spectrum of the media is to purchase ads to counter their unlimited free speech.

[El Sordo]

Both bills should be re-titled: "The Incumbent Protection Act"

[zog]

--last I knew (could be wrong, honestly) I *think* that in political adverts you are allowed to lie through your teeth, say anything, it's a free skate weird rule.

I think there needs to be a total ban on corporations or organizations (artificial persons in other words) from giving any money whatsoever. I also think there needs to be a cap of -say-100$ to any single named politician from any single named "real" human being.

How that flies in law, etc, I don't care, amend the constitution-anything to stop government being for sale. Government is for sale to the highest bidder now, it's obvious. It's ruining the nation-scratch-it's harmed it dramatically already the way it is now.

[vbmoneyspender]

Why are people who are 'torn' about Campaign Finance Reform never willing to face the issue that the reason people donate money to politicians is not because they like giving money away. Rather people give money to politicians because they are dealing with a protection racket, which they hope will protect them from the gov't accumulating even more power and, thus, doing even more harm to their interests.

So if you want real campaign finance reform, how could you possibly support any law that gives the gov't EVEN MORE POWER. This entire idea of giving the gov't more power to correct abuses that have occurred because the gov't already has too much power is nothing short of idiotic.

[El Sordo]

Amen, brother!

[m1911]

Another Hallelujah from the peanut gallery!

[sonjay]

How that flies in law, etc, I don't care, amend the constitution-anything to stop government being for sale. Government is for sale to the highest bidder now, it's obvious. It's ruining the nation-scratch-it's harmed it dramatically already the way it is now.

No no no. Amending away our First Amendment right to free speech is not the answer.

Read what Ron Paul has to say about the "for sale to the highest bidder" situation:

Special interest money has a huge influence in Washington, and it has a tremendous effect on both foreign and domestic policy. Yet we ought to be asking ourselves why corporations and interest groups are willing to give politicians millions of dollars in the first place. Obviously their motives are not altruistic. Simply put, they do it because the stakes are so high. They know government controls virtually every aspect of our economy and our lives, and that they must influence government to protect their interests. Our federal government, which was intended to operate as a very limited constitutional republic, has instead become a virtually socialist leviathan that redistributes trillions of dollars. We can hardly be surprised when countless special interests fight for the money. The only true solution to the campaign money problem is a return to a proper constitutional government that does not control the economy. Big government and big campaign money go hand-in-hand.

From Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk

[El Gato]

CFR does not ban individual donations. It is NOT a free speech issue.

Perhaps not, although I believe it is. It is still a violation of the 1st amendment, in this case the prohibition on Congress restricting freedom of the press. The press is not just the formal media, it's anyone with a message or some facts that they want to get out to the public. The Brady organization sending out a flyer on the positions of cannidates with respect to "gun safety", as well as Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership doing the same with regards to their positions on gun control are every bit as much "the press" as CNNAOLTIMEWARNER.

[Vladiator]

If you are seeking a real debate on the merits and/or constitutionality of the current proposals, you might as well put the head of NOW and Pat Robertson in a room and have them talk about abortion.

It comes down to: Big money (on both sides of the aisle) doesn't want it, but do they finally have the shame to at least try to rebalance the system so big donors can't make the splash they do.

I say let Exxon, the Teamsters, Dow, the AFLCIO, Microsoft and anyone else buy entire hours on the networks and exercise their freedom of speech to tell us who they think they should vote for. But don't let them hide behind the donkey and the elephant!

See, even I can't resist a rant on the subject!

[arthurus]

2) Only taxpayers should be allowed to vote. period. 3) Anybody should be allowed to run political ads (including corps), but they must identify "who" is running the ad, and be subject to libel and slander laws. no exceptions.

These two make some sense. I would change #2 so that anyone who takes money from the government should not be able to vote for candidates at the level from which they get their money. This would eliminate the military vote and the welfare vote and the government contractor vote, etc. I would not limit the franchise to taxpayers but I would like to see a flat income tax of less than 10% that would apply to anyone who has an income- no exceptions, no deductions.

These great Republican tax reductions always manage to exempt more and more people from paying the tax. People exempt from taxes have no interest in reducing taxes OR GOVERNMENT SPENDING since they are not paying for it. Actually they have an interest in continually raising spending and taxes

[El Gato]

The only way conservatives can refute the steady stream of leftist slant cascading from the entire spectrum of the media is to purchase ads to counter their unlimited free speech.

The media will sell them space/time. Space maybe in a few papers, but the broadcast networks and most local stations have consistantly refused to sell time to the like of the NRA, which is of course their right. However this legislation would prohibit self publication, as in the NRA's monthly magazines, of voting records and such.

[spunkets]

The right to speak entitles the speaker to arrange his own platform to speak from, with his money and his own efforts.

[spunkets]

"under CFR, the gov't. doesn't ban the medium (printing press), or the message the person is trying to give."

It bans you from using it, unless you're a news bozo.

[RAT Patrol]

I believe with all the horsing around congress has done to CFR it now stands that you can use print but not broadcast media to get your message out. I think you can also do those crazy phone call things.

I just thought...doesn't that discriminate against blind people since they can hear the broadcast news but can't see the newspaper?

Whatever, it is insane to restrict political speech in any way shape or form. You fight bad speech with good speech. Otherwise, you are left with the "enlightened" deciding for the masses what is good and bad speech. In other words, you've thrown out the 1st Amendment.

[spunkets]

"It is NOT a free speech issue."What do tou call shutting up groups of people that are out to inform folks regarding their cause 60 days prior to an election?

[zog]

I think it's because special interests are allowed to give money as artifical persons that so much is corrupt. We don't allow artificial persons to vote do we? Following the same argument, that artificial persons have born-with "rights" including the first amendment, then artificial persons should be able to vote, too. That's where it breaks down and I don't think ron paul "gets it" on this one. I normally agree with him on almost every issue, this one I don't. I don't see any dichotomy here, nor do I see anything unconstituional. note, I'm not talking about the original bill that is the thread starting topic here.. Ban contributuions from artifical persons. Created legalese artifical persons are NOT humans, and as such can be regulated without violating any "rights". Their campaign contributions exist as bribes, nothing more in the political process. As above, I also think no contributions outside your "real human" voting district, where your legal residence is. A cap is debateable, I'd like to see it , and see it kept low enough so that the political process is open to all, not just the ultra rich 'connected ones"; and legitimised under the"promote the general welfare" clause in the Constitution.

I know this is an emotional, intellectual and complex debate, but I see no reason to allow government to be "for sale" to the highest bidders, and any other measure is going to fall short. If it's allowed to continue as trends predict it will, eventually, you'll see nothing but the "wesayso corporation" 's 'candidates', running in all the parties simultaneously as your 'choice". It's almost there now for all practical purposes.

[El Gato]

This would eliminate the military vote and the welfare vote and the government contractor vote, etc.

The trouble with that is that it makes no distinction between those who exchange value with the government contractor employees and military personnel for example and those who just "get" something from the government. And there is a difference. Heck many of them don't work exclusively for the government anyway. Boeing for one, and the outfit who sells milk to the local base commisary and chow halls for another.

[myself6]

Are you EVER going to get it?

CFR wouldnt be an issue, "buying" the government wouldnt be an issue, "corporate donations" wouldnt be an issue if the government didnt have the tyranical regulatory powers it currently has, coupled with the socialistic tax code. If government didnt have the ability to regulate or tax a company or person into non existance, companies and people wouldnt spend the money they do on political campaigns.

People who support CFR base their arguments on the stupid premise that the current system is fundamentaly sound. It is not and has not been for at least 80 years.

[rmlew]

Imagine if the government said that you arew free to travel, but could only spend $500 on traveling.
Wouldn't that be infringing on your righ to travel?

[zog]

--no I get it. I also think that our constitution *does* allow regulations and laws, I just think the extent we currently "enjoy"is ludicrous. No regulations would be a disaster, IMO. Same as total regulations.

I'm in the recycling business. I recycle wire-this is an example only, I'm Not in this business really. Anyway, I buy the property that is immediately adjacent and upwind from your home. Every day, 5 days a week, 8 hours a day, I burn huge piles of insulated wire to get to the pure copper. I start them on fire with recycled crankcase oil I get for free, use many gallons a day to get the fire started, dump it right out on the ground over the wire.

Want that regulated?

[myself6]

"Want that regulated?"

By whom? The federal government? NO! The State Government? NO! By local city or town government? possibly, as I and the people in the vicinity would have more control over the people doing the "regulating", plus the fact that your "purchasing" a local official would not be worth the effort and money. It would be very easy to recall or replace the official because the number of people you need to reach would be VERY small (relative to a nationwide or statewide effort).

My argument is that the Federal government has no place doing anything other than providing for the common defense of the union of states. My argument is that if the federal government would not have usurped the power to regulate and tax the income of private citizens and business then we wouldn’t have a fraction of the problems we have today. Yes, government is a necessary evil and has a place but it must be VERY limited. Yes, regulation has a place but only at the local level and very limited. We cannot use regulation to guard against our own stupidity, ignorance or laziness as citizens. This leads to what we have today.

[FRlurker]

Thanks for the insightful and respectful debate. I appreciate all of your comments.