Campaign finance reform creates new problems-Campaign Finance Reform Thread, Day 92

DAYTON, Ohio - What is different about the federal elections of 2004?
Besides the disturbing prediction that this will be the "nastiest" campaign in presidential history, the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act will finally be tested in the field.
Passed with much fanfare before the 2002 mid-term elections, the proponents of McCain-Feingold had as their principal goal the elimination of the influence of evil "special interests" in politics.

Among the more interesting provisions were the banning of the use of soft money in federal elections (money the state political parties can collect in sometimes unlimited contribution amounts) and the banning of issue "attack" ads 60 days or closer to an election.

Will this stop special interests from influencing elections? No.
Recently, I was invited by the Harvard Law GOP during its annual D.C. retreat to attend a talk given by Ben Ginsberg and Ann Vogel.
These two people are the top election law counsel to the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign and the National Republican Committee, respectively.

What are the real effects of McCain-Feingold, according to them?
Regarding issue ads, it first must be said that the two main political parties and congressional/senatorial candidates usually don't have enough money to run many television ads more than 60 days before an election. Special interest groups, however, being banned from running ads when there is two months to an election, can now concentrate all of their ads on the period before this.
This means that the issues can now be defined by special interests in the formative, early stages of an election, and the political parties (being diminished under McCain-Feingold) will be virtually financially powerless to stop them.

Regarding soft money, many special interests are now starting to fill the financial void that many candidates are facing (because of their parties' diminished ability to spend money). Groups like EMILY's List (that donate money to pro-choice women candidates) are selecting a few specific congressional races (10 to 15) and getting its vast membership to send those congressmen or congresswomen money.

The result? Individual congressmen will each become beholden to one or two specific special interests for their political life. Thus, any coherent party platform on either side will be incredibly more difficult to achieve, as the party money has been replaced by special interest money and compromise simply isn't as politically viable.

This is not a partisan position. Both speakers freely admitted that right now, the new laws are benefiting Republicans more than Democrats. But both lamented the loss of democracy to an even greater special interest presence in the long run.

What McCain-Feingold ultimately teaches us is that running roughshod over the First Amendment is never a good thing.
At best you only diminish the freedoms our country is based on, and at worst, you achieve the exact opposite of what you hoped to achieve. The next time we contemplate diminishing the First Amendment in the name of outrage at "Washington fat cats," we should remember this.

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

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.