Stifling free speech-Campaign Finance Reform Thread, Day 91

World Net Daily ^ | 3/12/04 | Joseph Farah's

[Valin]

I told you so.

I warned you that the monster called "campaign finance reform" was nothing of the kind.

I explained that limits on political speech were not only unconstitutional, they were immoral.

I said we would no longer recognize the American political system if this abomination were actually implemented.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Last week the Republican National Committee asked 250 television stations to pull TV ads critical of President Bush because they break those laws.

Now, I don't like MoveOn.org. I don't like anything about the group that sponsored the ads. I have been critical of their ads, which I consider deceitful at best, un-American at worst.

But like it or hate it, MoveOn.org has a right to be heard. There is no excuse to censor the group. There is no excuse to deprive the group of free-speech rights. There is no excuse to deprive it of First Amendment rights.

The RNC argues that MoveOn.org, financed by so-called "soft money," is spending it on ads to influence a federal election. The campaign finance law broadly prohibits the use of such corporate, union and unlimited donations to do so.

And that's the problem. That law is unconstitutional on the face of it. Thirty years ago, any schoolchild could have told you so. But, today, our legalistic minds are so confused. They insist on regulating every facet of Americans' lives. They don't trust the people to have a spirited debate and arrive at a smart decision. They want to micromanage affairs because we're too fat, lazy and stupid to get it right.

But the RNC is playing the heavy here – and it will only come back to haunt the organization.

"As a broadcaster licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, you have a responsibility to the viewing public and to your licensing agency to refrain from complicity in any illegal activity specifically in this case, violations of our nation's federal election laws," the RNC warned the TV stations.

If the RNC recognized the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, it ought to be fighting for repeal of those unconstitutional laws. We shouldn't have to consult lawyers and judges simply to participate in a national presidential election or a local congressional election.

If MoveOn.org is denied the right to trade in political speech, who's next?

The Republican Party was complicit in designing these rules limiting what special-interest groups can say and do in campaigns. The Democrats, the party preferred by MoveOn.org, was complicit in designing those rules. The Supreme Court, supposedly the experts on the Constitution, surprised everyone by upholding the clearly unconstitutional law these two parties conspired to impose on us all.

Now, we have a lose-lose situation for everyone. We have more incumbency protection, less competition in our already uncompetitive political system and the beginning of the end for the First Amendment, which, by the way, was drafted by the founders to ensure that political speech was protected absolutely.

As a result, this may be the second presidential election decided by a small group of men and women in black robes rather than the people. Is that the system we want? Is that the system we deserve? Is that the system that made America famous? Is that the system the founders envisioned?

I hope MoveOn.org challenges the campaign finance laws. I hope the group is successful. I hope the Supreme Court is forced to reverse its idiotic decision upholding this law. And I hope the Republicans and the Democrats are embarrassed for creating this monster.

[Valin]

Yesterdays Thread
McCain warns FEC to act on 'soft' cash
THE WASHINGTON TIMES 3/11/04 Brian DeBose
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1095355/posts?page=1



If you want on/off this Campaign Finance Reform list please let me know.

If you are interested in posting some of these threads please let me know.
Fame Fortune could be yours.
Win a front row seat at the Jerry Springer show!
If you don't Helen Thomas will move in with you!

[Valin]

Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob
Special to FreeRepublic | 17 December 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

This is nothing like the usual whine by someone whose post was pulled. JimRob pulled my previous thread for a good reason. "If direct fund-raising were permitted on FR, it would soon be wall-to-wall fund-raising."

So, let's start again correctly. This is about civil disobedience to support the First Amendment and challenge the TERRIBLE CFR decision of the Supreme Court to uphold a terrible law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.

All who are interested in an in-your-face challenge to the 30- and 60-day ad ban in the Campaign Finance "Reform" Act, please join in. The pattern is this: I'm looking for at least 1,000 people to help the effort. I will run the ad, and risk fines or jail time to make it work -- AND get national support.

But there should be NO mentions of money in this thread, and not in Freepmail either. This is JimRob's electronic home, and we should all abide his concerns.

Put your comments here. Click on the link above, and send me your e-mail addresses. I will get back to you by regular e-mail with the practical details.

This CAN be done. This SHOULD be done. But it MUST be done in accord with JimRob's guidelines.


Fair enough?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1042394/posts



Update
I've already tested the idea of my in-your-face challenge ads, first in the print media and then deliberately illegal on TV, with certain editors I have a long relationship with. I could trust these two gentlemen, one in the print media and the other in the broadcast media, with a "heads up" on what I am planning. Both said they wanted to know, in advance, when I am about to do this.

The bottom line is clear. If I am willing to put my neck on the line, with the possibilities of a fine and jail time, THAT effort will put CFR back on the front page in all media. And that is part of the point. There's not much value of going in-your-face against the enemies of the First Amendment unless the press takes up the story and spreads the word. It is now clear they will do exactly that.

Update 2
QUICK PROGRESS REPORT, ANSWERING A SUPPORTER'S QUESTION:
We have about 15% of the needed 1,000 sign-ups.

Spread the word, direct folks to the front page link on my website.

Google-bomb the phrase "anti-CFR" directing readers to that page and link. (We're already #2 and #4 on Google.)

Target date is now August, since the NC primary looks to be put back to September. (Remember, the ad isn't illegal until the 29th day before the election.)


Cordially,

John / Billybob


Note if you are interested in more on this please contact Valin or Congressman Billybob

[King Black Robe]

LOL! Valin, thanks for your tireless efforts.

[MegaSilver]

I agree with the author in principle.

However, the McCain-Fengold CFR Act, unconstitutional in principle, is assumed to be constitutional until ruled otherwise, unfortunately. Thus, it is hypocritical for only part of the law to be enforced.

The Republicans opposed this law (as they should have), but now that it is in effect, they have a responsibility to uphold it (as they are), ESPECIALLY when upholding it works to their advantage.

[DustyMoment]

The Republicans opposed this law . . . is assumed to be constitutional until ruled otherwise.

I know that the snippets are out of order and out of context, but you really have me confused. If Republicans opposed it (and I would love to know who) then NOT ENOUGH of them opposed it to prevent it from becoming law. According to the numbers, Republicans hold a majority in both Houses of Congress and the WH. If Republicans opposed it, it should have gone down in flames.

With regards to it being assumed to be constitutional until ruled otherwise, I respectfully disagree. The very wording of CFR violates specific free speech provisions of the Constitution that even Bush acknowledged and claimed he would veto the bill before changing his mind and signing it. In fact, it was widely acknowledged by those who actually read the bill that it violated the First Amendment, but all of our elected officials chose to engage in pass-the-buck politics - assuming that the next higher political body would overturn the bill. Well, they didn't and it got to the Supreme Court who, in essence (by virtue of their ruling) said "you passed this piece of crap, LIVE with it!!"

I know that everyone has seen this provision of the Constitution so many times it is permanently emblazoned on EVERYONE'S brain but, here goes: Congress shall make no law abridging the right to free speech. Apparently, the mini-minds in the Congress that wrote the bill and supported it and the lame brain in the WH didn't understand that simple directive in the Constitution and passed everything along to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS assessed it and, by virtue of their response said "be careful what you wish for."

This battle isn't over yet. Freedom loving people who know and understand the Constitution will leave no stone unturned in our battle to repeal this dreck of a law.

[The_Eaglet]

Farah hits the nail on the head - again.

Thanks for posting this and all your work toward stamping out this attack on the freedom of speech.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Factually 110% correct, though I must admit that if the GOP prevails, I will enjoy watching them hoist the Dems on their own petard.

[sheltonmac]

...is assumed to be constitutional until ruled otherwise...

"Assumed to be constitutional"? By whom? The president and members of Congress swear an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." That means they should always be vigilant when considering legislation. In my opinion, the president is the biggest culprit because he admitted that the bill posed "serious constitutional concerns" - and went ahead and signed it anyway! Had he vetoed the bill, it would have died. Congress lacked the votes to override it.

[MegaSilver]

I know that the snippets are out of order and out of context, but you really have me confused. If Republicans opposed it (and I would love to know who) then NOT ENOUGH of them opposed it to prevent it from becoming law. According to the numbers, Republicans hold a majority in both Houses of Congress and the WH. If Republicans opposed it, it should have gone down in flames.

Most Republicans opposed it. Unfortunately, enough of them supported it to allow the Democrats to have their way. The Democrats may be the minority party, but they will control the Senate for as long as the Republicans refuse to see them for what they are: relentless, tyrannical oligarchs and become equally ruthless in their attempts to shoot down Democratic legislation and uphold their own.

With regards to it being assumed to be constitutional until ruled otherwise, I respectfully disagree. The very wording of CFR violates specific free speech provisions of the Constitution that even Bush acknowledged and claimed he would veto the bill before changing his mind and signing it.

It certainly IS unconstitutional, and one might even argue that President Bush, along with every member of the legislature who voted for it, ought to be censured for allowing this ludicrous bill to pass. And the courts should certainly strike it down as unconstitutional; heck, even the ACLU agrees.

That said, in the meantime, Republicans and Conservative groups will be expected to follow and uphold the law as amended by CFR, and we should place the same burden on our opponents.

[Valin]

The president and members of Congress swear an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." That means they should always be vigilant when considering legislation.

Unfortunately far to many of them don't take this oath seriously. And I might add far to many voters don't take the constitution seriously, and don't hold the politicans accountable.

[DustyMoment]

I believe that we are saying the same things. I never said, nor do I believe that the anti-free speech provisions of CFR are Constitutional. I also agree with your last paragraph. Whether Constitutional or not, we do have to comply bilaterally until such time as the law is overturned or repealed.

[MegaSilver]

I believe that we are saying the same things. I never said, nor do I believe that the anti-free speech provisions of CFR are Constitutional.

I know... I meant to italicize that one paragraph (it was yours). :)

I also agree with your last paragraph. Whether Constitutional or not, we do have to comply bilaterally until such time as the law is overturned or repealed.

Keeping in mind, of course, that if we continue to comply bilaterally with such laws, it may get to the point where we have to say, "Enough is enough!" and exercise our Second Amendment rights.

[DustyMoment]

Keeping in mind, of course, that if we continue to comply bilaterally with such laws, it may get to the point where we have to say, "Enough is enough!" and exercise our Second Amendment rights.

I couldn't agree more.

[The_Eaglet]

H.R. 3801 has 34 sponsors now!

[The_Eaglet]

And I might add far to many voters don't take the constitution seriously, and don't hold the politicans accountable.

True, but I think the numbers are growing for those of us who are trying.

[The_Eaglet]

This battle isn't over yet. Freedom loving people who know and understand the Constitution will leave no stone unturned in our battle to repeal this dreck of a law.

What DustyMoment said!

[The_Eaglet]

FEC ruling could take down Democrats

[The_Eaglet]

Recommended Reading:

Campaign Finance Reform and Oath-Breaking Politicians

[Valin]

I've found that the question, "Where does say that in the constitution?" to be very effective.