Posted on 02/15/2002 1:26:45 PM PST by The Old Hoosier
Should Congress Forbid Free Speech? The House passed the controversial Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill, 240 to 189, in the early morning hours of February 14. (See Human Events rollcall next week.) The measure was a Valentine to the establishment media. It forbids citizen groups, labor unions and corporations (other than news outlets such as CBS and the Los Angeles Times) from even mentioning the name of a candidate for federal office in a broadcast communication within 30 days of a primary election, or 60 days of a general election. This gag rule applies to any group that does not obey stringent individual contribution limits ($1, 000 per contributor per election) and that does not give the Federal Election Commission a complete list of donors and their contributions. The bill without question limits speech about political issues and candidates--precisely the sort of speech the 1st Amendment was written to protect. A spokesman for Rep. Marty Meehan (D.-Mass.), lead sponsor of the bill, defended the provision. The gag rule, he told Human Events, does not apply to individuals who take out ads that mention a candidate’s name. However, since most Americans cannot afford $100,000 or more out of their own pocket for a political ad on TV or radio, the bill will prevent middle-class and poor Americans from pooling their money to debate, through organizations of their choice, political issues on an equal footing with billionaires and network news organizations. President Bush has not criticized the gag rule. At a February 13 press briefing, however, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters the President may oppose the bill for another reason--a last-minute change that would allow the Democratic National Committee to pay off its hard money debts with soft money. The night before the campaign finance vote, Human Events Assistant Editor David Freddoso went to Capitol Hill to ask congressmen if they would vote to abridge free speech. Would you ever vote to limit how much or when or in what venue groups of Americans can speak about political issues or candidates? Such a statute would be a violation of the 1st Amendment in my opinion. I think probably you’re asking about provisions of the campaign finance act. Right. I do have some concerns about the independent expenditure limitations here. I would [think] that there’s a credible argument that the independent expenditure limits are not an abrogation of the right to speech, but a regulation of it. For example, I don’t have the right to insist that the city council let me speak at one of their meetings where members of the council are going to talk among themselves and not take public comment. I don’t have the right to engage in a debate with other candidates on the ballot if I don’t collect enough signatures to get my nominating petitions in. Those are valid regulations under the 1st Amendment. I think that what’s in the bill before the House is a similarly valid regulation. I’m aware that there are arguments that it isn’t. I’ve reached the conclusion that it’s a valid constitutional exercise of our authority, so I can vote for it. You do plan to vote for it. I do. --Robert Andrews (D.-N.J.) Voted: Yes Would you ever vote to limit how much or when or in what venue groups of Americans can speak about political issues or candidates? Absolutely not. And I intend to vote to remove that provision in the campaign finance reform bill which would prohibit advocacy groups from buying advertising time within 60 days of an election. That is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is an affront to the long traditions of free speech in American society, and it simply has to come out of this legislation. . . . Isn’t the 60-day rule the only way to really eliminate soft money? No. Absolutely it’s not. . . . Soft money, in this context, is money spent by political parties. . . . The Constitution provides that people have the right to speak, and there’s nothing Congress can do to limit that right to speak. The legislation before us would purport to do that, and it would limit it in the single most sensitive area, which is speech in support of or in opposition to a candidate for office. This speech right is absolutely fundamental to the functioning of our society and we should not limit it or attempt to in any way. If the amendment that you’re supporting, to strip the 60-day rule, fails, will you vote against the bill? Then I do not intend to support the bill. --Rick Boucher (D.-Va.) Voted: No Would you ever vote to limit how much or when or in what venue groups of Americans can speak about political issues or candidates? Not knowingly, but there are some places where political rhetoric is not considered to be appropriate. But would you make it illegal? For example, do you plan to vote for the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill? Oh, yes, I do. You know there’s a 60-day period before any election when a group of citizens wouldn’t be allowed to take out an ad on TV or the radio that mentions a candidate’s name--even to publicize their record. Well, there is a provision to make sure that certain kinds of ads. If you talk about the attack ads, and-- Well, even if you mention someone’s name, congresswoman. --and special interest groups doing that, I think that’s appropriate. I’m going to vote for Shays-Meehan. Now, I may not vote for it if it’s gutted, that it doesn’t hold the restriction. It makes no sense to pretend you have campaign reform if you don’t have campaign reform. But if I want to have an ad that says, "Clayton’s great," or even just to say, "Clayton voted for this," I couldn’t do that under Shays-Meehan. That is not the reality of what goes on, and you know it as well as I do. But shouldn’t I be legally allowed to do that under the 1st Amendment? You’re legally allowed to do that now. But if Shays-Meehan passes, then I can’t take an ad out that says that if I get together with some friends to do it. Well, you can’t use campaign money to do it-- Actually, I would be able to use campaign money, but not my own money with other people’s money. Well, that’s the issue. That’s the issue. If you were individually John P. Doe saying "Eva Clayton is great" within 15 days, you could do that. Or if you are John Doe saying "Eva Clayton is a hell-raiser," you can do that. But let’s say that I’m poor, like I am, and I can’t afford to do it on my own, so I get together with some friends and we just form a little group, and we want to-- Nope. It’s a no. It’s a no. That’s it. You think I shouldn’t be able to do that? Of course I do. Oh, yes. But Shays-Meehan would prevent me from doing that. No, I’m saying, I agree with Shays-Meehan. You shouldn’t be able to do it. I shouldn’t be able to do that? Yeah. You shouldn’t be able to bundle the money and act under the disguise of what you couldn’t do individually. But what if we’re exactly who we say we are. We’re just a group of citizens who really like Eva Clayton? No. And that’s it. --Eva Clayton (D.-N.C.) Voted: Yes Would you ever vote to limit how much or when or in what venue groups of Americans can speak about political issues or candidates? This refers exactly to campaign finance reform, and it’s for that very reason that I oppose the bill that’s out there. As a broadcaster, we were always concerned, in terms of 1st Amendment issues, about a chilling effect--what could be more chilling than to tell a group of Americans they couldn’t run ads against me or mention my name in broadcast advertising for a 60-day period prior to an election. That’s unconstitutional on its face. And it’s for that reason, regardless of the intent of some who support this legislation, that I vigorously oppose it. --J. D. Hayworth (R.-Ariz.) Voted: No Would you ever vote to limit how much or when groups of Americans can speak about political issues or candidates? The Ney-Wynn bill, I believe, stands up for freedom of speech. Whether it’s a group I agree with or not, they should have the right to speak out against members of Congress, or speak out against challengers to members of Congress. Shays-Meehan gags people. Under Shays-Meehan, you can spend all the soft money you want in the world on a print piece, but not radio and television. It does gag, 60 days before an election, right when everybody’s paying attention. On the other hand, if you take a singular, wealthy individual, who just decides to trumpet a cause, they can do whatever they want. But groups of people, whether it’s Gun Control, Inc. or the NRA, whether it’s pro-choice or pro-life, those are groups with millions of people in them. But oh, if they use that tainted money--a donation by someone who supports their cause, or from a corporation or a union--they can’t use it 60 days before an election. And all the sudden, you’ve got to almost get permission from the federal government of what you’re going to say if you’re going to use certain currency. --Bob Ney (R.-Ohio) Voted: No Would you ever vote to limit how much or when or in what venue a group of Americans can speak about political issues or candidates? Well, if you’re talking about Shays-Meehan, which I’m sure you are, as you know in Shays-Meehan there is a trigger, where if it’s unconstitutional the rest of the bill applies. That provides an adequate safeguard. My feeling right now is that I don’ t know what’s going to happen in terms of amendments. I’m definitely for doing something about campaign finance. So you don’t know whether you’re going to vote for or against the bill as it is? Not for sure. But you’re saying you may vote for it, expecting part of it to be struck down by the Supreme Court? Could very well happen. --Tom Osborne (R.-Neb.) Voted: Yes
Would you ever vote to limit how much or when or in what venue groups of Americans can speak about political issues or candidates? No, of course not. How do you plan to vote on Shays-Meehan? Aye. You’re aware of the provision that prevents independent ads that mention a candidate’s name 60 days before an election? Are you a lobbyist? No, sir. I’m with Human Events. You sound like a lobbyist. Well, we are a conservative publication, so we have a point of view, but we try to present the facts objectively. (The Congressman laughed loudly and patted the reporter on the back.) Have a good evening. You don’t mind if I ask the question, though, Congressman? I already answered it, all right? --Charles Rangel (D.-N.Y.) Voted: Yes Would you ever vote to limit how much or when or in what venue groups of Americans can speak about political issues or candidates? Well, I don’t think you can define, by legislative statute, how Americans express themselves. The Constitution clearly sets that forth in article one. We don’t need any more legislation. How are you planning to vote on Shays-Meehan? Well, I don’t know which Shays-Meehan. There may be a half-dozen versions of it. Now, which one are you talking about? How about if it’s not amended from the way it is now? Well, we’ll see. I never telegraph my vote. You’ll find out tomorrow. In principle, would you be against a provision that prevented a group of citizens, 60 days before an election, taking out an ad that mentions a candidate’s name? Oh, I think that’s a pretty restrictive position, because it seems to me that would violate the freedom of speech. --Ralph Regula (R.-Ohio) Voted: No Would you ever vote to limit how much or when groups of Americans can speak about political issues or candidates? No, and that’s why I oppose Shays-Meehan. Do you believe that it violates the 1st Amendment? Yes, I do believe that it has constitutional problems, and that’s why I’m against it. --Lamar Smith (Tex.) Voted: No The following exchange took place between the reporter and Rep. Zach Wamp, a longtime Republican supporter of Shays-Meehan. Congressman Wamp, would you ever vote to limit how much, when or in what venue groups of Americans can speak about political issues or candidates? Why aren’t you up in the Speaker’s Lobby, with the press? Well, uh, I’m just here [in the House sub-basement] trying to ask questions of congressmen. I’ve seen you here before and I wonder why you’re not up there. Well, because you’re not up there. [And, also, because tape recorders are forbidden in the Speaker’s Lobby, but not elsewhere around the Capitol.] That’s where I’m going, though. That’s where you speak to the press. Okay, congressman. Would you mind if I ask you the question, though, sir? Up there is where the press asks questions of members. That’s why I’m asking why you wouldn’t go there with your credentials to ask your questions. (Congressman Wamp then started a conversation with someone else.) Well, I just wanted to ask them here, sir. That’s all. (The congressman refused to answer. Later, his office did not respond to a written version of the same question. ) --Rep. Zach Wamp (R.-Tenn.) Voted: Yes
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
I wonder what the tax implications would be of 'gifting' an individual with $$$ and that individual blew it all on political partisan TV ads just prior to Election Day?
I realize, of course, that this would be LEGAL, at least.
Or would the Feds be on you with writs and brief-cases like 'the wolf on the fold'?
Isn't it wonderful to live under the rule 'not of men, but of lawyers'. ;^)
I hope none of the dark side's lurkers hit the Abuse button on you! LOL!
This is appalling, truly appalling. ;-(
Your Congressman voted for the Shays-Meehan campaign finance bill, which is the reason we're not allowed to say his name on the radio, because Shays-Meehan takes away our right to free speech.
But we can give you a few hints about who your Constitution-hating Congressman is:
1)He's really tall.
2)He used to be the football head coach at Nebraska.
3)His name rhymes with "Cosborne."
This, along with his steadfast refusal to raise taxes will ensure that the people reelect him to a second term. Violate either, he loses the trust of the people and he's a goner. IMHO
Gotta go watch Canada vs. Sweden!.. lol
I can imagine speaking to my grandkids 20 years from now " Yeah, we lost the constitution and most people didn't even realize untill it was too late."
But I still mean the words I said on Oct. 02 1985 , standing in the same walls my granddad was when he took this oath 50 years ago.
I SWEAR TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC.
Amen, if we'd wanted this nonsense, McC**n would've been nominated. Dubya campaigned against this.
God bless us all,
Kermit
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.