After I enacted my own version of Campaign Finance Reform, I easily won re-election. It's easier to win when you stifle the speech of those who oppose you. - Robert Mugabe, President-for-life, Zimbabwe.
Posted on 03/22/2002 1:02:23 PM PST by Smile-n-Win
Pollster: Do you support reforming campaign finance?
John Doe: Why, sure.Pollster: Would you support restricting free speech?
John Doe: Of course not!
Obsessed as politicians are with polls, the one reliable way to prevent unconstitutional legislation from being enacted is to turn public sentiment against it. I would like to suggest a simple strategy for increasing public awareness that CFR is unconstitutional:
This is a strategy that has worked all too well for the Liberals. People now believe that the welfare state is something good, that killing your baby is OK, that it is normal for a sex blind couple to adopt and raise a child, and so on--things everyone would have recognized as absurd a couple of decades ago. This has happened because they've kept repeating their lies over and over again, accompanying them with words that sound like a serious argument to the superficial observer.
If the media kept telling us the sky was green rather than blue, many of our non-freeper friends would actually believe them after a sufficient number of repetitions.
The time has come to turn this weapon of the Liberals against them. Let's roll! Let's kill the unconstitutional CFR!
Understood, but I don't see the connection between the right to breathe air and the right to pay for television commercials. Breathing air is an implied right that's pretty obvious. If the Klan wished to purchase air time it would be denied. Alcohol and cigs are already denied.
There's no argument at all. It's the FCC, and yet I can find no mention of the FCC in the Constitution.
This is not a conservative or liberal issue. It's a political issue that encompasses both parties and the way they control everything.
I'll get back to you. I expect to have to implement this plan in the next couple of weeks, as soon as W signs CFR.
I don't necessarily agree that the 60 day cutoff on advertising is any more of a violation of free speech than say banning liquor and tobacco ads which have been upheld by the courts or the local prohibition of electioneering within 100 feet of a polling place. Those are "restrictions on free speech" as well and have been upheld.
The fundamental problem with CFR is the obvious fact that the RATS will simply ignore the law and do what the hell they want to anyway like The Arkansas Abomination did.
Actually that restriction would probably not hurt conservatives anyway since most of the RAT voters are so dumb they have to be reminded 24/7 what to do.
The manner means "the way"
What you're saying is the "manner" of running a capaign, not the manner of holding elections (or "the way" you hold elections).Campaigns and elections are two different things. I think the "manner of holding elections", as someone stated above, is strictly the mechanics of it, which is, of course, covered by the USC and federal law.
And I may be wrong, but isn't the way one gets on the ballots governed by state laws?
CFR applies not to the election, but to the campaign. So it isn't covered by Art. 1 Sec 4.
I will call in an expert.
Yes, I was born in Hungary and I still live here. I am a Hungarian citizen. I've always been a great admirer of the United States, and I'm very interested in the cause of Conservatism in your country. If Conservatism triumphs in the States, it's likely to have a positive influence on other countries around the world.
39 out of 50 Republican Senators voted against it. The 11 who crossed party lines were mostly well-known RINOs. There were similar proportions in the House. Looks to me like real Conservatives don't really like this bill, and they have a good reason for not liking it.
I think it's an issue of meritocracy versus pressocracy. You know whose side the majority of the press is on, don't you.
Forming districts, designing ballots, counting votes, and the like. Things the government does. Campaigning is something candidates do. Financing campaigns is something the people do.
I don't necessarily agree that the 60 day cutoff on advertising is any more of a violation of free speech than say banning liquor and tobacco ads which have been upheld by the courts or the local prohibition of electioneering within 100 feet of a polling place. Those are "restrictions on free speech" as well and have been upheld.
The unconstitutional CFR restricts speech in a way that directly interferes with the democratic process. It bans issue ads, but at the same time lets the press write whatever they want to. The press almost unanimously supports the Rats, and Conservatives will be left defenseless.
The fundamental problem with CFR is the obvious fact that the RATS will simply ignore the law and do what the hell they want to anyway like The Arkansas Abomination did.
I agree. (Except that I would say "The fundamental problem with the unconstitutional CFR is...") :-)
CFR is the first piece of legislation, of which I am aware, that prohibits what I can say, and when I can say it, about a candidate.
I wish changing people's minds was as easy as asking a couple of questions. The difficulty is in getting them to think past those questions - almost an impossiblity with most.
Last summer, while working on the Recall McCain petition, I called our local radio station and spoke on McCain's unconstitutional legislation, and his oath of office, etc. No sooner had I hung up than the host said, "Oh, yeah, but we need campaign finance reform."
Yesterday, a gentleman called the same host and spoke to a November candidate for the House. When the words "CFR" were uttered, the host yelled, "Oooooh, ooooh," like he was in pain.
That guy is going to get a packet from me of the illegalities of CFR, telling him to educate himself! His ignorance is embarrassing.
After I enacted my own version of Campaign Finance Reform, I easily won re-election. It's easier to win when you stifle the speech of those who oppose you. - Robert Mugabe, President-for-life, Zimbabwe.
The Klan does have the right to purchase commercials, just as the television stations have the right to refuse thier business.
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.