Skip to comments.Bloggers from both sides oppose FEC regulations (FEC Might Limit Web Free Speech)
Posted on 03/22/2006 4:36:06 AM PST by PJ-Comix
Conservative and liberal bloggers both worry their freedom of speech is threatened by proposed campaign-finance rules that seek to regulate online political speech.
The Federal Election Commission is expected tomorrow to outline rules that could limit political Web logs and e-mail solicitations and would be similar to campaign-finance laws that apply to more traditional advocacy groups, such as the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association.
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.washingtontimes.com ...
McCain is nutz.
I agree with you that CFR is a bad law. However no one has tried to change it, Why is that? Why havent feingold and McCain triesd to fine tune it. My belief is that many in Congress like it the way it is, They approve of having our Constitutional Rights Impaired.
Oh they make a big deal out of the Patriot Act for political purposes, but CFR is much worse than the patriot act for taking away Americans rights.
I hope that JimRob has a BACKUP server for the FR in the Bahamas or someplace else offshore.
I don't mind the PA, but McCain-Feingold is the single biggest leap of hypocrisy and assault on one of our basic freedoms ever foisted on us by other "Americans".
I'd say the Kelo decision is right up there. Worse, IMHO, though the two go rather well hand in hand...
. . . and when it was pointed out that McCain-Feingold hadn't contained campaign finance but just produced other loophole-seeking behavior and distortions in 2004, McCain had the nerve to assert that the law has to be strengthened!
McCain-Feingold is terrible law, because it explicitly gives journalists rights distinct from those of the people. The First Amendment does not allow that.
O'Connor was part of the 5-4 SCOTUS majority that OKed McCain-Feingold and, please God, that ruling will be overturned root and branch.
How do you regulate free speech?
McCain reminds me of the character Capt. Queeg in the movie and book "The Caine Mutiny". He appears to have a few screws loose.
A cynical person might suggest that the place is getting long overdue for some kind of revolution.
How I Work
U.S. Senator (R-Arizona)
You lose battles in politics. I do get good and angry. Really angry! By God, I'm not going to let them beat me again. I don't like to lose. After the 2000 race for the presidential nomination, I spent at least ten days -- and in many ways it was the most wonderful experience of my life -- wallowing in self-pity. It was really fun. Freeing.
Then I just woke up and said it was time to get over this. The people you represent don't want you this way. You're still their Senator. And besides, America doesn't like sore losers. I also don't hold grudges. It's a waste of time. What's the point? Frankly, the sweetest revenge is success.
Amen. If McCain is nominated in 2008 I will not be voting that year.
There are 2 things of mine that you don't mess with. One is my gun safe and the other is telling me what I can say and think.
Nominating Bloomberg, Pataki or Guiliani also would convince me to stay home rather than voting.
I really don't think McCain wants Internet speech shut down and I don't think there's a snowball in hell's chance of it happening.
Yawn, CFR was going to pass by override of a veto anyway.
Congress actually is the one that proposes legislation and CFR lays in the lap of mccain.
But nice try at Bush bashing.
It apparently wasn't so bad that it could draw out the Boy King's veto pen.
Does McLame still think he's Luke Skywalker?
All of us need to speak out against this outrage!
So why did the House delay its vote on Hensarling's bill? Do we know if McCain had anything to do with that?
This is an outrage and to quote Bush 41, "this will not stand."
Because one of the purposes of the law is to further restrict parties other than the Republicrats, preventing a breakup of the duopoly.
McCain isn't playing with a full deck.
He doesn't have both oars in the water.
He's about three bricks shy of a load.
And he got this horrible bill passed.
What does that say about our reps who voted for his bill?
See reply #14, DUmmie.
I disagree. Kelo was a decision (not obiter dicta) by 9 robed and hooded bandits supporting laws and regulations made by thieves.
The people you supposedly "represent" here in AZ want you out of office!!
He will lose AZ in '08 if he runs for president.
We blew our chance in '04 to oust him, because no one who had half a name ran against him. We are cursed, like he's "our Kennedy."
Dear FReepers: On behalf of Arizona, WE'RE SORRY, USA!
He's very tightly-wound: a classic megalomaniac.
"See reply #14, DUmmie."
You mean Democratic Underground? That's rich--I'd last about ten seconds over there.
I still don't see an explanation as to why the Boy King didn't honor his oath to protect and defend the Constitution and veto this monstrosity.
He's definately a loose phaser..
Yet by even a futile veto, Bush could have shown us he cares about free speech and full involvement of the people in the political process. As it is he stated support for it in general even during his 2000 election campaign. He would have signed it even if there was no threat of an override.
After signing, he stated several serious constitutional flaws in it that we now complain about. These flaws gave ample reasons for a veto, reasons that the people could have understood, yet he still signed it. He also stated that he would work with Congress to address these constitutional issues, but he has done nothing as far as I know.
Bush even promised to sign an extension of the "assault weapons" ban. You could say he did it because he knew an extension wouldn't pass, but saying he'd veto would have shown us he cares about our right to keep and bear arms. Instead, he chose to pander to the Brady bunch.
But nice try at Bush bashing.
People deserve to be bashed when they do bad things.
Uh the "Boy King"(DUmmie term) knew that a veto of CFR would be overidden, but what the hey, be like the MSM(DUmmies) and blame everything on Bush, instaed of the person who pushed this monstrosity through, mccain.
You bots kill me. A) Even if true, President Bush could have avoided complicity in passing a bill that he himself considered unconstitutional. B) It isn't true. The bill could have been defeated if the President had made an effort.
President Bush signed it expecting the courts to overturn the legislation. He gambled and we lost. It was the lowest point of his administration.
Uh, President Bush stated what he would have liked to see in CFR bill. They were ignored by Congress, but also seeing the vote count on CFR he knew that his veto would be overidden, by Congress.
It's called strategery, and yet you ignore that strategery and not lay the impetus of CFR on mccain, whose child this monstrosity called CFR began.
But what the hey you DUmmie, gotta go by the old standby, blame Bush.
wasn't it 6 bandits vs 3 good guys ?
President Bush signed it expecting the courts to overturn the legislation. He gambled and we lost. It was the lowest point of his administration
LOL! You shadow DUmmies kill me.
The House vote was 240-189, Senate 60-40 to pass McCain Feingold, Roll Call Votes #34 ansd #54 respectively. You need 2/3rds vote in each house of Congress, 290 and 67 respectively, to override a Presidential veto.
Thanks for the ping A-B, please keep me on that list.
Go back to sleep.
The FEC can do whatever the Hell they like, but they will find that unless they intend to restrict the Internet as does Communist China (hand in hand with Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc.), political speech and blogs online cannot be regulated. As some posters have suggested, there will simply be a mass migration of bloggers to foreign servers where McPain-Foolsgold and the FEC cannot touch them.
As for the legal battle within the U.S.? Who do you think will be the most powerful ally for bloggers in putting the kabosh on the FEC and other government agencies?
Ironically, it will be the dying MSM, because as they seek to recover lost subscribers by increasing their online web presence, any restrictions on Internet-originated political speech will be tightening the noose even further around THEIR necks. For that reason alone, they will pour their not-inconsequential legal resources into this fight.
And if they do manage to somehow shut down or restrict the access of American citizens to Constitutionally protected free speech online?
We should remember the patriotic example set by a pre-Internet patriot, the late Reverend Dr. Carl McIntire, and his offshore broadcast operation, "Radio Free America":
We'll shove the broadcast mast all the way up your traitorous ass until it tickles your tonsils.
Good correction, thanks.
A great many steps have been taken to usurp, restrict and infringe on the rights We The People have been endowed with by our Creator. Incrementalism is the tool of the Socialists.
But I think that this issue will be the biggest blow to our liberties as enumerated by the Bill of Rights. Like none other we have faced in the last century.
And it comes from our elected officials. This is digusting to me.
It brings to mind a Thomas Jefferson quote...something about the Tree of Liberty...if you catch my drift.
Liar, liar, pants on fire!
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 27, 2002
President Signs Campaign Finance Reform Act
Statement by the President
Today I have signed into law H.R. 2356, the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002." I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for Federal campaigns.
The bill reforms our system of financing campaigns in several important ways. First, it will prevent unions and corporations from making unregulated, "soft" money contri-butions -- a legislative step for which I repeatedly have called.
Often, these groups take political action without the consent of their members or shareholders, so that the influence of these groups on elections does not necessarily comport with the actual views of the individuals who comprise these organizations. This prohibition will help to right that imbalance.
Second, this law will raise the decades-old limits on giving imposed on individuals who wish to support the candidate of their choice, thereby advancing my stated principle that election reform should strengthen the role of individual citizens in the political process.
Third, this legislation creates new disclosure requirements and compels speedier compliance with existing ones, which will promote the free and swift flow of information to the public regarding the activities of groups and individuals in the political process.
I long have believed that complete and immediate disclosure of the source of campaign contributions is the best way to reform campaign finance.
These provisions of the bill will go a long way toward fixing some of the most pressing problems in campaign finance today. They will result in an election finance system that encourages greater individual participation, and provides the public more accurate and timely information, than does the present system. All of the American electorate will benefit from these measures to strengthen our democracy.
However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections.
I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment.
I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.
As a policy matter, I would have preferred a bill that included a provision to protect union members and shareholders from involuntary political activities undertaken by their leadership.
Individuals have a right not to have their money spent in support of candidates or causes with which they disagree, and those rights should be better protected by law. I hope that in the future the Congress and I can work together to remedy this defect of the current financing structure.
This legislation is the culmination of more than 6 years of debate among a vast array of legislators, citizens, and groups. Accordingly, it does not represent the full ideals of any one point of view.
But it does represent progress in this often-contentious area of public policy debate. Taken as a whole, this bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 27, 2002.
They can pry this keyboard from my cold dead hands.