Posted on 03/20/2002 4:33:41 PM PST by erk
|
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2002
Statement by the President
Like many Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, I support common-sense reforms to end abuses in our campaign finance system. The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall, and I will sign them into law.
The legislation makes some important progress on the timeliness of disclosure, individual contribution limits, and banning soft money from corporations and labor unions, but it does present some legitimate constitutional questions. I continue to believe the best reform is full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.
###
Untrue assertion
— The First Amendment. In 1976 the Supreme Court threw out mandatory limits on candidate spending while agreeing to limits on contributions. Opponents say the soft money ban and the restrictions on issue ads in the final days of an election violate First Amendment free speech rights. Supporters dispute this, saying that groups and individuals can still run issue ads if they use hard money and disclose the source of the ads.
I am just inserting facts into the sea of hysteria. Both the Immigration Reform act and the CFR have yet to be debated on this forum in a factual way. Both issues are just being used as red meat for the hyenas to scrounge a meal from.
You see, government does not abide by the Constitution because you believe in smiling faces of politicians that have contempt for the basics of our nation.
To: exodus
No your "right" to free speech was doubled in this legislation. Your "right" as a citizen to speak out in political advertisements was not touched by this legislation. In every way from paycheck protect to individual rights to support their candidates was broadened by this legislation. Should there be any limits to how much money corporations or unions be allowed to spend? Maybe not, but individual opportunity to participate was enhanced. I would counsel a little education on the issue before you make those pronouncements.
# 559 by Texasforever
****************************
Oh, good. I'm so glad.
Is it true, Texasforever?
Can I really contribute ALL my money to the candidate of my choice,
hard money, with NO restrictions?
You know that's not so.
Why do you put "right" in quotation marks?
Do you think political speech isn't really a right?
So nice, my government is going to ALLOW me to "double" my free speech rights.
Texasforever, government has no power to grant a right. A right that is allowed is not a right.
However, a right CAN be infringed, and that is what is happening to our free speech.
You completely miss the point of rights, Texasforever.
"...Should there be any limits to how much money
corporations or unions be allowed to spend? Maybe not..."
Neither unions or corporations are persons. Neither one is a citizen, and neither one is allowed to vote. Neither one should be allowed to contribute at all. However, if the individual members want to contribute all they own, THEY should not be restricted at all.
I only know what I get out of my own reading that seems to be confirmed by those that are paid to analyze the bill. What the advocacy ban seems to be targeting is both parties using soft money to secretly funnel to advocacy groups to run the final attack ads to avoid the spending caps. We saw that with the Texas guys that ran the ads in New York and then it was found out they were using party money to do so. Hard money is the direct citizen contributions either on their own or through PACS. As long as that is where the money is coming from then there is no restriction on the ads, The National parties and to a lesser extent the State parties have to stand down in the 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a federal election. We also saw it with Unions having money funneld back to them by the DNC to run their attack ads.
No and you could not before this law either. What you can do is contribute twice as much now. Don't play games exodus you are not prepared. I don't mind arguing the constitutional basis because I would tend to agree it is dubious BUT this bill is better than the CF laws we did have.
Wanna bet some REAL_MONEY?
Untrue assertion
— The First Amendment. In 1976 the Supreme Court threw out mandatory limits on candidate spending while agreeing to limits on contributions. Opponents say the soft money ban and the restrictions on issue ads in the final days of an election violate First Amendment free speech rights. Supporters dispute this, saying that groups and individuals can still run issue ads if they use hard money and disclose the source of the ads.
# 561 by Texasforever
****************************
"...the Supreme Court threw out mandatory limits on candidate spending while agreeing to limits on contributions..."
Isn't that what I've been saying??
What if I don't WANT to run an ad?
What if I want to give all my money to Joe Blow, and let him spend it any way he thinks best?
Not everybody is a marketing specialist, Texasforever. Why should I be forced to either hire one or run ineffective, amateurish ads instead of giving my money to a man I trust to do right?
`(3) ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATION- For purposes of this subsection--
`(A) IN GENERAL- (i) The term `electioneering communication' means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which--
`(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office;
`(II) is made within--
`(aa) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for the office sought by the candidate; or `(bb) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for the office sought by the candidate; and
`(III) in the case of a communication which refers to a candidate for an office other than President or Vice President, is targeted to the relevant electorate.
`(ii) If clause (i) is held to be constitutionally insufficient by final judicial decision to support the regulation provided herein, then the term `electioneering communication' means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which promotes or supports a candidate for that office, or attacks or opposes a candidate for that office (regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate) and which also is suggestive of no plausible meaning other than an exhortation to vote for or against a specific candidate. Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to affect the interpretation or application of section 100.22(b) of title 11, Code of Federal Regulations.
`(B) EXCEPTIONS- The term `electioneering communication' does not include--
`(i) a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;
`(ii) a communication which constitutes an expenditure or an independent expenditure under this Act;
`(iii) a communication which constitutes a candidate debate or forum conducted pursuant to regulations adopted by the Commission, or which solely promotes such a debate or forum and is made by or on behalf of the person sponsoring the debate or forum; or
`(iv) any other communication exempted under such regulations as the Commission may promulgate (consistent with the requirements of this paragraph) to ensure the appropriate implementation of this paragraph, except that under any such regulation a communication may not be exempted if it meets the requirements of this paragraph and is described in section 301(20)(A)(iii).
To: exodus
No and you could not before this law either. What you can do is contribute twice as much now. Don't play games exodus you are not prepared. I don't mind arguing the constitutional basis because I would tend to agree it is dubious BUT this bill is better than the CF laws we did have.
# 569 by Texasforever
****************************
That's my point, Texasforever. Both before and after this bill, government infringes on our freedom.
No joke, I'm glad to hear you say that you agree that restrictions on spending are un-Constitutional.
You're right, I haven't read the bill. I don't always have time to research everything before I post. However, no matter what the bill "allows," it doesn't remove all restrictions on a citizen's ability to participate in elections.
I know that the restrictions are there to "protect" us from those mean ol' special interests, but I would rather brave that danger than have my government restrict MY power to act on my own. I shouldn't have to say "pretty please" before I speak. I don't NEED permission. I have the right to be heard.
Maybe I misunderstood that, Texasforever,
but it seems to say that in addition to the 60 day restriction,
there is also a 30 day restriction on the preliminary elections.
I am not allowed to run an ad that mentions my candidate by name,
and I can't run ads only in the area effected by the election.
In other words, I can only run ads that support a political party, not my man,
and I have to pay for that generalized party propaganda over a large area,
not in the region I'm interested in.
I don't consider that freedom, Texasforever.
What does that mean?
An ad can't be paid for, unless it's counted as a expenditure??
An expenditure is a cost.
Is the whole bill null and void if I claim that I spent money on the ad I paid for?
Political Parties cannot run those ads. Independent organizations or individuals that use "hard money" not party campaign funds, are not under such restrictions. Let's say you are bill gates, you can buy every advertising minute right up to poll closure. You have to take the body of the regulation in concert with the exceptions.
That's right. It is a lame attempt to skirt the 1973 court decision based on the false definitions of expenditures vs donations. That is why the issue will be moot the moment the USSC gets hold of it. The Supremes don't like their past decisions monkeyed with. I have a feeling that the entire bill could be found unconstitutional. The beauty of that is, CFR is a dead issue instead of being brought up over and over and over again.
Goodnight, Texasforever.
I've got to get up early.
I'll check the thread tomorrow.
David
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.