(Just kiddin'! - CD)
Posted on 02/22/2002 8:10:47 AM PST by P8riot
I have just initiated a petition for the president to veto Shays-Meehan / McCain - Feingold.
Go here to add your signature.
CD
(Just kiddin'! - CD)
| AL-Cramer-5th AR-Berry-1st AR-Ross-4th AR-Snyder-2nd AZ-Pastor-2nd CA-Baca-42nd CA-Becerra-30th CA-Berman-26th CA-Bono-44th CA-Capps-22nd CA-Condit-18th CA-Davis-49th CA-Dooley-20th CA-Eshoo-14th CA-Farr-17th CA-Filner-50th CA-Harman-36th CA-Honda-15th CA-Horn-38th CA-Lantos-12th CA-Lee-9th CA-Lofgren-16th CA-Matsui-5th CA-Millender-McDonald-37th CA-Miller, George-7th CA-Napolitano-34th CA-Ose-3rd CA-Pelosi-8th CA-Roybal-Allard-33rd CA-Sanchez-46th CA-Schiff-27th CA-Sherman-24th CA-Solis-31st CA-Stark-13th CA-Tauscher-10th CA-Thompson-1st CA-Waters-25th CA-Watson-32nd CA-Waxman-29th CA-Woolsey-6th CO-DeGette-1st CO-Udall-2nd CT-DeLauro-3rd CT-Johnson-6th CT-Larson-1st CT-Maloney-5th CT-Shays-4th CT-Simmons-2nd DE-Castle-at large FL-Boyd-2nd FL-Brown-3rd FL-Davis-11th FL-Deutsch-20th FL-Foley-16th FL-Hastings-23rd FL-Meek-17th FL-Ros-Lehtinen-18th FL-Thurman-5th FL-Wexler-19th GA-Bishop-2nd GA-Lewis-5th GA-McKinney-4th HI-Abercrombie-1st HI-Mink-2nd IA-Boswell-3rd IA-Ganske-4th IA-Leach-1st IL-Blagojevich-5th IL-Costello-12th IL-Davis-7th IL-Evans-17th IL-Gutierrez-4th IL-Jackson-2nd IL-Johnson-15th IL-Kirk-10th IL-Phelps-19th IL-Rush-1st IL-Schakowsky-9th IN-Carson-10th IN-Hill-9th |
IN-Roemer-3rd IN-Visclosky-1st KS-Moore-3rd KY-Lucas-4th LA-Jefferson-2nd LA-John-7th MA-Capuano-8th MA-Delahunt-10th MA-Frank-4th MA-Lynch-9th MA-Markey-7th MA-McGovern-3rd MA-Meehan-5th MA-Neal-2nd MA-Olver-1st MA-Tierney-6th MC-Etheridge-2nd MD-Cardin-3rd MD-Cummings-7th MD-Gilchrest-1st MD-Morella-8th MD-Wynn-4th ME-Allen-1st ME-Baldacci-2nd MI-Bonior-10th MI-Clay-1st MI-Conyers-14th MI-Dingell-16th MI-Gephardt-3rd MI-Kildee-9th MI-Kilpatrick-15th MI-Levin-12th MI-Luther-6th MI-McCollum-4th MI-Oberstar-8th MI-Ramstad-3rd MI-Rivers-13th MI-Sabo-5th MI-Skelton-4th MI-Smith-7th MI-Stupak-1st MI-Upton-6th MO-McCarthy-5th MS-Hoyer-5th MS-Taylor-5th MY-Rangel-15th NC-Clayton-1st NC-McIntyre-7th NC-Price-4th NC-Watt-12th ND-Pomeroy-at large NE-Bereuter-1st NE-Osborne-3rd NH-Bass-2nd NJ-Andrews-1st NJ-Ferguson-7th NJ-Frelinghuysen-11th NJ-Holt-12th NJ-LoBiondo-2nd NJ-Menendez-13th NJ-Pallone-6th NJ-Pascrell-8th NJ-Payne-10th NJ-Rothman-9th NM-Udall-3rd NV-Berkley-1st NY-Ackerman-5th NY-Boehlert-23rd NY-Crowley-7th NY-Engel-17th NY-Gilman-20th NY-Grucci-1st NY-Hinchey-26th NY-Houghton-31st NY-Israel-2nd NY-LaFalce-29th NY-Lowey-18th NY-Maloney -14th NY-McCarthy-4th NY-McHugh-24th |
NY-McNulty-21st NY-Meeks-6th NY-Nadler-8th NY-Owens-11th NY-Quinn-30th NY-Serrano-16th NY-Slaughter-28th NY-Towns-10th NY-Velazquez-12th NY-Walsh-25th NY-Weiner-9th OH-Brown-13th OH-Hall-3rd OH-Jones-11th OH-Kaptur-9th OH-Kucinich-10th OH-LaTourette-19th OH-Sawyer-14th OH-Strickland-6th OK-Carson-2nd OR-Blumenauer-3rd OR-DeFazio-4th OR-Hooley-5th OR-Wu-1st PA-Borski-3rd PA-Brady -8th PA-Coyne-14th PA-Doyle-18th PA-Fattah-2nd PA-Greenwood-8th PA-Hoeffel-13th PA-Holden-6th PA-Kanjorski-11th PA-Mascara-20th PA-Platts-19th PA-Weldon-7th RI-Kennedy-1st RI-Langevin-2nd SC-Clyburn-6th SC-Graham-3rd SC-Spratt-5th SD-Thune-at large TN-Clement-5th TN-Ford-9th TN-Gordon-6th TN-Tanner-8th TN-Wamp-3rd TX-Bentsen-25th TX-Doggett-10th TX-Edwards-11th TX-Frost-24th TX-Gonzalez-20th TX-Green-29th TX-Hinojosa-15th TX-Jackson-Lee-18th TX-Johnson, E. B.-30th TX-Lampson-9th TX-Ortiz-27th TX-Reyes-16th TX-Rodriguez-28th TX-Sandlin-1st TX-Stenholm-17th TX-Turner-2nd UT-Matheson-2nd VA-Moran-8th VA-Wolf-10th VT-Sanders*-at large WA-Baird-3rd WA-Dicks-6th WA-Inslee-1st WA-Larsen-2nd WA-McDermott-7th WA-Smith-9th WI-Baldwin-2nd WI-Barrett-5th WI-Kind-3rd WI-Kleczka-4th WI-Obey-7th WI-Petri-6th Wva-Capito-2nd |
To WIMom: Thanks for the heads up!!!
HELP STOP CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IN ITS TRACKS! Join the First Amendment Action Network NOW!
|
Top Ten Myths About |
|
|
||
|
Link to: | PDF (62k) | |
|
|
Produced by the
The Center for Legal
and Judicial StudiesPublished by
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Ave., N.E.
Washington, D.C.
20002-4999
(202) 546-4400
http://www.heritage.org
Dispelling a number of stubborn myths about the current campaign finance proposals is critical now that the perennial debate over campaign finance reform has returned, with the House taking up H.R. 2356--the self-styled Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 ("Shays-Meehan"). The Senate already has approved a similar version of campaign finance controls on political speech, S. 27 ("McCain-Feingold"); and the President has indicated that he likely will sign whatever Congress passes. Thus, the House may be the final bulwark against a serious violation of our First Amendment rights.
Myth #1: "Shays-Meehan is constitutional." Any bill that attempts to "equalize" citizens' political speech through criminal and civil penalties for "excessive" or "unfair" speech violates the First Amendment, which provides in plain terms that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" (emphasis added). Many provisions of H.R. 2356 are unconstitutional. Although the constitutional debate is complicated by the convoluted nature of past laws and current proposals, the proof of the pudding is that approximately 30 of 32 similar "reform" statutes were struck down in the federal courts. (For a list of key cases, see the James Madison Center for Free Speech February 2001 report on S. 27 at www.jamesmadisoncenter.org.)
Myth #2: "Congress need not consider the `complicated' constitutional issues." According to this myth, Congress can pass a questionable (or blatantly unconstitutional) bill and let the courts sort things out. But every Member of Congress takes an oath, required by Article VI of the Constitution, to uphold the Constitution. This duty is non-delegable. Although the courts may have to rule on some aspects of a law after years of uncertainty and litigation, Congress has an independent duty not to criminalize speech that it knows, or should know, to be constitutionally protected.
Myth #3: "Only right-wingers and partisan Republicans oppose Shays-Meehan." Although this is hardly an argument on the merits of the bill, it is not true. Besides Representative Albert Wynn (D-MD) and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the AFL-CIO opposes key provisions of the bill. So does a large coalition of other liberal groups, including the Alliance for Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union. According to the Washington director of the ACLU, the legislation "represents a double-barreled attack on political freedom in America."
Myth #4: "Congress should decrease the amount of campaign spending." If the First Amendment means anything, it means that Congress cannot try to limit the amount of campaign speech or spending. The Supreme Court has made clear that this is a prohibited purpose, and the intent of many reformers to achieve this end renders their legislation unconstitutional. It is a fundamental tenet of the First Amendment that government has no business trying to limit the amount or type of political discourse.
Myth #5: "Shays-Meehan would decrease the amount of campaign spending." Even if it were acceptable to try, almost every reform proposal regulating political speech would increase the amount of campaign spending. As long as any First Amendment protections remain, enacting convoluted campaign regulations (constitutional or not) is like trying to dam a stream with a pile of sticks. Campaign spending eventually will flow through the dam, over the dam, or find another path. But because such indirect spending is often less effective than direct contributions to candidates, the amount of money chasing the same end will increase. All past reform efforts prove this basic law of economics and politics--unless government's size and scope are significantly reduced.
Myth #6: "Shays-Meehan would equalize citizen participation." The only effective way for most citizens to be heard during an election campaign is to band together in interest groups such as unions, fraternal organizations, and community groups. H.R. 2356 would restrict the rights of poor or middle-class citizens to engage in campaign activity through such groups, but it leaves wealthy individuals and huge media corporations alone. Plutocrats and powerful media corporations should be free to speak, but it is wrong to increase their power artificially at the expense of less affluent citizens.
Myth #7: "Shays-Meehan would help challengers defeat incumbents." No bill would pass if it hurt incumbents, and H.R. 2356 substantially helps incumbents. The Canadian experience with reforms similar to those proposed in Shays-Meehan confirms this: Incumbents lost even fewer elections, and because of new spending caps, campaign ads became almost totally negative. According to one scholar, this caused "widespread disinterest and disgust at the issue-less, invective-driven campaign."
Myth #8: "Banning soft money will increase transparency and accountability." Attack ads produced by unknown or "sham" groups have grown as a result of past reform laws. They will surely mushroom if accountable and well-respected organizations are prohibited from contributing or using soft-money contributions. Unions, corporations, and political parties are important repeat players with strong interests in maintaining their long-term reputations. These groups often pull ads that are criticized as unfair. Under Shays-Meehan, unaccountable groups will fill the void and run attack ads in increasing numbers.
Myth #9: "Independent speech can be `redefined' as a candidate's speech." Shays-Meehan attempts to redefine normal contacts between independent interest groups and a candidate as collusive so that any later campaign activity by the independent group is treated as an in-kind gift to the candidate. Try as it might, Congress cannot change by statute what the Supreme Court has said is a constitutional distinction. Unless the campaign activity itself truly is coordinated with the candidate, independent groups may spend as much as they want on election activity. Even if the redefinition were constitutional, however, the result would be that affiliates would form to engage in election activity that is less transparent and accountable than under current law.
Myth #10: "Nothing will please the constitutional purists." Standing up for the Constitution is noble in and of itself. However, constitutional purists have offered a practical and effective reform proposal: lifting contribution limits to candidates but requiring rapid disclosure of significant contributions. If voters are outraged by large contributions and always equate them with corruption, as "reformers" claim, then rapid disclosure is not only self-enforcing, but also far more effective than a thousand other regulations that simply channel political contributions elsewhere.
--Todd Gaziano is Director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
One of the most amazing things I have seen in the past month is the willingness of our Congress to accept the Supreme Court as a higher authority in the land than they are. Senator Spectre, (RINO-PA) called them the highest authority in the land. Now Congress wants to approve a bill they know is bad so they can count on SCOTUS to kill it. That's like mommy telling a kid to ask daddy when she knows the idea is bad so daddy will be the bad guy.
Congress, POTUS, and SCOTUS are co-equal. They have different roles and responsibilities, but neither is above the other and each is checked and balanced by the other two. When Congress passes a bill that they know SCOTUS will strike down, they cede their legitimate Constitutional authority to SCOTUS. Likewise, if POTUS signs it knowing SCOTUS will strike it down, he cedes his legitimate Constitutional authority to SCOTUS. If they keep this up, our nation will become an oligarchy (which it nearly is now).
The larger Constitutional issue than even this assault on our freedom of speech is this assult on the separation of powers. Conservatives have got to start demanding that the people they elect do their duty and maintain the delicate balance of powers that our founders intended. Otherwise, this great governmental experiment will fail.
Shalom.
Posted on 1/4/02 4:53 AM Central by backhoe
Does ignorance- the kind you run into in conversations with people, on editorial pages, and in letters to editors- make you queasy?Remeber the old saying, "stupidity is forever, but ignorance can be cured with learning," and do your part to spread knowledge across the Web and the world.
First, never forget that we have a valuble resource right here on this site:
Research & Analysis via FreeRepublic...
Next, when you see an article here, pass it on to others-- Look here:
Communicate! Let the Sons of....
--within these links for mass communication are a pile of email addies-- what you do, in Outlook Express is create a new email "group" and in that group enter as many of the email addies as you wish.... I have one for "opinionators," one for "media" and so on. When you see a post on FR you want to send to a group, minimise IE and open Outlook express, click "new mail" go to the group you want to send it to and put it in the "bcc" so they aren't aware it is a mass email. Go back to IE and if you have clicked on the article, its web address will appear in the "address" window.... just use control-C and -V to copy & paste that to your email, with a title and comments, and send it... they will have a clickable link that way. How much good this does I do not know, but at least for a while people have a chance of seeing and reading things they may be unaware of.... I do suspect that some commentators like Tony Snow on Fox have gotten items this way.
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.
