Posted on 05/06/2003 12:08:41 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
CFR Never Should Have Gone This Far
May 5, 2003
After my program's Fourth Hour ended on Friday afternoon, we learned that a three-judge panel had struck down most of the so-called campaign finance reform limits on free speech. Now it's on to the Supreme Court. It appeared that this federal district court in DC had tossed aside McCain-Feingold, but that's not the case. In the audio link below, you can hear me go into the review of this ruling from the Landmark Legal Foundation - our EIB legal wing.
A Brilliant Example of CFR's Chilling Affect on Free Political Speech... (A McCain-Feingold Political Censorship Scenario on a Kerry Anti-Tax Cuts Ad)
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050503/content/a_mccain_feingold_political_censorship_scenario_.guest.html
Monday's Wall Street Journal points out that the three-judge panel took five months and nearly 1,700 pages "to make an even greater hash of what was already a legal monstrosity." The Federalist Papers didn't take this long to write, much less read. "This is what happens when foolish people decide they can bring perfection to politics.... This is also what happens when a president declines to use his veto to protect and defend the Constitution." This ruling was as simple as pointing to the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." McCain-Feingold seeks to criminalize certain political speech. There is no illegal speech in America! Our Constitution is unique in the history of man because it says what the government can't do, not what the people can do.
Our rights are "inalienable," meaning they can't be taken from us; they aren't subject to the whims of other men in government. The Founders wanted robust and vigorous political discourse. People could choose to listen or not, but this dialogue is fundamental to a republic's existence. Yet of these three judges, the ones appointed by Bush 41 and Bush 43 ruled the law or parts of it unconstitutional. The Clinton judge ruled the whole law constitutional. CFR focuses on three major items. Item #1: soft money - unlimited, non-candidate contributions - can't be used by parties for ads.
Item #2: The federal government has been empowered to investigate virtually any claims that you or your little group are connected to a candidate. If they rule against you, you'd be in violation of the law. Item#3: The court decided that advocacy groups could run ads within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. (They're telling us when it's okay to speak!) Ads may mention individual candidates but they cannot support, attack or oppose them at any time. How can you mention somebody's name without supporting, attacking, or opposing? This is unbelievable!
I don't know how anybody could look at this law fair-mindedly and not see that it's a gross violation of the Constitution. I guess some judges and politicians look at the genius of James Madison and think that they have the intellectual chops to improve upon his work. One caller remarked, "I don't think that it's very much of a problem to put out an advocacy ad against an entire party without naming an individual candidate." He's talking about accepting this restriction on free speech and finding a way around it. Don't capitulate like that when the government steps on your rights! Once you open the door to let Big Brother police what kind of speech we can engage in, where will it end?
BUMP
Ditto.
Cordially
Unfortunately, that "reform" is also illegal/unConstitutional. There should be NO restrictions of ANY sort on ANY political campaign contributions. The single allowable proviso should be that any and ALL such contributions MUST BE MADE PUBLIC, giving the name and contact information of the donor(s). If the donation is by an organization, then the membership must also be published.
This is what I'm taking about when I said:
No, people with a brain know that part of the system of checks and balances is for EACH branch of the government to make judgements as to the Constitutionality of the other branch's behavior.
McCain had backed GWB into a corner and put him in an apparent no-win situation. So the lessor of the two evils was taken punting to the courts to do the right thing.
Ever heard of politics??? I know it's an ugly business but it is the business of Washington. Every single congressman and senator takes the same oath to uphold the constitution. BUSH wanted the "hard money" limit raised, and it was, to $2000 and indexed. The rest is up to the courts. If 3 judges took up 1700 pages just trying to explain themselves, how much chance do you think BUSH would have with every major media outlet and the majority of congress against him, were he to try and explain a veto. This was the path of least resistance, you and I might have preferred sticking it to the McCainiacs but it wasn't "prudent".
Two ideas: Term Limits and an end to party politics.
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.