Who will defy 60-day "ban on free speech" before elections?

today - a day that WILL live in infamy | epluribus_2

[MainFrame65]

I don't think the law really works the way that is represented by this thread. First, I believe that any candidate can use "hard money" to put on the kind of ads banned by this law. What is prohibited is ads from political parties, affiliated organizations, and anything paid for by soft money.

The hole in this is going to be enforcement; will the law be enforced equally against both parties? Or will MoveOn get a pass while anyone on the right gets slammed (slammered?).

[Bernard Marx]

None of y'all need to worry about challenging this ruling, as George Soros is sure to give it a shot.

Soros already has ways of circumventing campaign financing laws by shelling out donations to "front" groups like moveon.org and hate bush meetings. The NRA is already testing this new ruling, to the outraged cluckings of the French-looking candidate, Kerry. It's trying to buy a radio station or TV channel to spread its views and in so doing is pointing out the absurdity of this new O'Connor-enabled ruling. What gives the "establishment" media the sole right to broadcast political opinions? Who decides what media are "official?" If only state-sanctioned media have the right to political opinions 60 days before an election then we have a real problem here. Instead of challenging the law myself I think I'll make a generous contribution to the NRA.

[goldstategop]

The law will be enforced against challengers. If incumbents are threatened Congress will change the law to make sure the playing field is tilted so as to keep those in power safe. Just so no one gets any ideas CFR is really about "clean elections." Its really nothing of the sort.

[mware]

I got a feeling that the NAACP will not be prosecuted if they run another dragging to death ad come October of '04.

[js1138]

Ordinary people will not have to opportunity to break this law. It applies primarily to campaign ads, and the media will enforce it by not accepting such ads.

I can't imagine any political party stupid enough to be unable to work around the prohibition on mentioning names.

[WackyKat]

Even if you wanted to violate the ban, which media outlet would risk it's license by running it?

The ban effectively muzzles citizen criticism of incumbents, which was its purpose

[foolish-one]

That depends. If the reporting requirements are imposed upon the individual or organization sponsoring the ad and there is no risk to a station's license then, while the major networks may not want to play their own game, with so many independent radio and television outlets around I'm sure one would be found that would air a paid political announcement. Plus there is always public access on cable.

[o_zarkman44]

massive demonstrations could garner a 10 second spotlight in the media, allowing the messages of defiance to candidates to be broadcast free of charge. There is nothing that says an individual can't become a news media outlet with a little paperwork, allowing free commentary as a public service. Any ideas around this law?

As in every law created by and for lawyers, there are always loopholes to allow litigation, furthering a lawyers profit potential. We just have to find the loophole to exploit.

[narby]

Put me on a list for this. I'll donate, whatever.

We could form a PAC, just for this purpose.

Maybe advertize specifically against McCain or Feingold. Paybacks are hell.

[bigeasy_70118]

Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore

[FroedrickVonFreepenstein]

How does this effect the JBS and our Trim bulletins?

[CommandoFrank]

Does this mean I won't be interupted with boring political boasts and lies during 'Survivor' or football games?

Huummmm....

[epluribus_2]

no, they would get FRONTLINE to do a special segment on it.

[Iconoclast2]

That rule only applies to Leftists, or incumbents. A Right-wing non-incumbent will be treated harshly, to show how serious they are about the law.

[July 4th]

You've got it. Individuals are still (individually) protected, but the Supreme Court has limited our ability to associate. You and I can't get together with 20 other Freepers to fund an ad on TV. A candidate may still spend his/her own hard money on ads, however.

[Jimbaugh]

I am going to form a syndicated news show and then as a journalist I am protected by the Constitution. That is why the NRA is forming its own network. You will pay for advertising and that is deducible for any business.

Wow this is great. Businesses can contribute and deduct it from their taxes.

Is it legal?  You can bet on it.  We just do what NBC or ABC does and it is legal.

[kimmie7]

bump for later

[dr_lew]

I can hear Dustin Hoffman's lawyer character yelling "NO YOUR HONOR - YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER - YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER" as they carry out the first convict.

"Let him march to the music he hears, however measured or far away."

[Travis McGee]

But who will be watching your tiny news outlet? Or the NRA's?

If the SCOTUS has declared that an advocacy group is forbidden by law from buying ad time on ABCNNBCBS 60 days before an election, then free speech is as good as dead in America.

We don't have a constitutional form of government any more, we just have the "Rule of Five" (black-robed radicals).

In their smug little world, the "Rule of Five" is the absolute last word.

The little commissars forget why the 2nd Amd was put right behind the 1st.

[Triple]

What about as a protest, writing a "personal ad" that names McCain and Fiengold (or others who supprted CFR) and having individuals place the add in newspapers across the country.

Sample

Not-Wanted
Politicians like McCain and Fiengold
that flout "The Constitution" of The United States of America.
Congressman __________, voted to limit free speech.
Tell Congressman __________ you disagree - vote against him.
(Feel free to place this same add in your local paper)

End Sample

Anybody also think this idea is worth consideration?