A Stake Through The Heart Of Free Speech -Daily Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 26

The Chattanoogan ^ | 12/20/03 | Mike North

[Valin]

Some people would have you believe that everything wrong with politics can be traced to money. Thanks to Political Action Committees (PACs); labor unions; corporate lobbyists and the evil rich, the common folk don’t stand a chance. Money flows to campaign accounts, and the recipient is forevermore beholden to the donor. Hard money, soft money, Monopoly money, it all finds it’s way to that bulging “war chest.”

The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill was going to exorcise the money demon from our political soul. No more soft money, no more attack ads paid for by special interests. The fact that those attack ads are constitutionally protected political speech means nothing to the anti-money crowd. That a grassroots citizen’s committee can’t advertise their Congressman’s vote on the latest trade bill (within 60 days of the election) is irrelevant.

Let’s examine some facts before we let the anti-money fervor carry us away. We all want to know as much as possible about the candidates we have to choose from. Where are they on economic issues? On social issues? How do they get their message to us? They can’t be expected to cover the whole nation door-to-door, so they need money.

Democratic Presidential candidate Howard Dean has skyrocketed to the front of the primary pack by virtue of his unique fundraising and organizing plan. He has forsaken the usual channels, and has appealed to his base of support using the Internet. Such a non-traditional approach has netted the candidate 15 million dollars so far, 3 million coming in just one week. And what has that money done for him? In the words of commentator Cal Thomas, it has “paid for the jet fuel to fly him across the country,” taking his message to the voters. Isn’t that what we want? Won’t that money allowed him to use the airwaves to tell every potential voter where he stands on the issues?

McCain-Feingold was marketed and sold on the idea that it would clean up the campaign finance laws. If it stopped at that, perhaps it wouldn’t be so bad. But the bill is troubling because of the way it approaches political advertising. In the week prior to the California recall election, the media, led by the Los Angeles Times, used every available inch of column space and minute of broadcast time discussing the various allegations against Schwarzenegger. Under McCain-Feingold, Schwarzenegger’s supporters might not be allowed to run privately funded ads rebutting the charges. Such restrictions place a candidate at a strict disadvantage, and clearly violate the rights of all Americans to free political speech.

The McCain-Feingold law was challenged by a diverse group, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Republican Party, the Democratic Party of California, the AFL-CIO labor federation, the NRA, the ACLU, and the national Chamber of Commerce. This coalition of strange political bedfellows should serve as proof that the law, as written, is danger to free speech no matter which end of the political spectrum that speech comes from. But the Supreme Court disagreed, recently uphold the key provisions of the law.

Interestingly enough, most political analysts believe the bill will hurt Democrats most, because the Democratic Party relies on “soft-money” contributions from unions and interest groups to a much larger extent than does the GOP. Republican candidates have had much greater success in raising money by way of small contributions from individual donors. But it was the liberal wing of court, along with the perennial swing vote of Justice O’Conner that upheld the law. The conservative judges on the court voted to throw out the limits on political ads run within 60 days of an election.

The First Amendment was written with two goals in mind – one being the protection of political speech. The courts have concluded that the First Amendment protects every form of expression -– no matter how vile or repugnant. But under McCain-Feingold, the one form of expression truly protected will see that protection diminished. "It makes no sense to me at all," says Stephen Presser, who is a constitutional law professor at Northwestern University. "The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, and if prohibiting the kind of commentary they're suggesting 60 days before an election, in lots of different media, isn't abridging the freedom, I don't know what is."

In an unusual move, the court left a door open to reconsider their decision should someone come forward with a “showing of harm.” That should happen, I predict, about November of 2004.

I don’t lose sleep worrying about who contributed to whom. But I may lose sleep over the fact that a bunch of meddlers have decided that we have a right to speak freely, as long as that speech doesn’t include a number followed by any zeros.

(Mike North writes a regular op-ed column for six newspapers in the southeast Tennessee, northwest Georgia and northeast Alabama region. He is a professional land surveyor with True Line Company, Land Surveyors. He is a former Walker County School Board member and a student of history and political science.

[Valin]

Yesterdays Thread
Through the looking glass
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1051286/posts?page=9#9

If you would like to be on or off the Campaign Finance Reform Thread please let me know.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
5	Maryland	565.00	10	56.50	334	1.69	293.00	14

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[jocon307]

"In an unusual move, the court left a door open to reconsider their decision should someone come forward with a “showing of harm.” That should happen, I predict, about November of 2004."

This I hadn't heard before. I'm glad there is this glimmer of hope, because I truly believe this decision is one of the most, if not THE most, atrocious ever made by the SCOTUS.

Thanks for posting this article.

[Valin]

Remember better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

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

[putupon]

Why do they go to the trouble to write new laws, when all they need is an eraser?

[The_Eaglet]

This article does an excellent job of presenting the issue and how it violates First Amendment rights.

[The_Eaglet]

This I hadn't heard before. I'm glad there is this glimmer of hope, because I truly believe this decision is one of the most, if not THE most, atrocious ever made by the SCOTUS.

The bill itself is an atrocity due to its infringements on First Amendment rights.

[Valin]

I always thought putting a limit on the # of laws/reg./decrees, ordinances, rules, statutes.
Let them have (say)10,000, if they wqant/need one more they have to get rid of one.

[King Black Robe]

Bump!

Hey, there's a great article on subject at Townhall.com. A link is posted at the top of their homepage right now.

[Valin]

This?
Censorship across the divide: 'Epithet' that!
Diana West
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dianawest/dw20040105.shtml

[King Black Robe]

No, this

[MosesKnows]

In every congressional session Rep. Shadegg (R) AZ proposes the Enumerated Powers Act.

Who believes that proposed legislation (H.R. 384) actually exist which would require our elected representatives to follow the Constitution?

That would indicate to the most casual of observers just how corrupted the 16th and 17th amendment allowed the nation to become.

[DustyMoment]

Great article that clearly identifies the problems with CFR.

I have long felt that we don't need Congress in session 10 months out of the year. With so much of other people's money available to them to re-distribute to others and no clear agenda that they must accomplish each session, the publicity they are under pushes them to create problems that didn't exist before.

I don't think we need Congressional term limits, they haven't solved any problems where they have been implemented. What we need are Congressional SESSION limits. When I lived in Texas, I loved the way that the Texas Legislature held its sessions. They went into session for 6 months once every two years and their most important job was to pass a state budget. With 6 months to screw around with, they created lots of other mischief and, often, would not pass the budget so that the Gov. would have to call them back into special session (at taxpayer expense).

I think we need a Congress in session for 6 months once every 2 years to pass a budget and other NECESSARY legislation (yeah, I know, "necessary" is open to interpretation, but we can refine it in the details). The rest of the time they should have to go home and live in the mess they have made. With today's communications systems, they don't need to be in Wash. at all. They can obtain secure Internet and videoconferencing services that allow them to stay home, do less gladhanding, create fewer unnecessary and redundant laws and let the country take care of its own business. If we need to have a special session, the option is available to the President to call one, BUT . . . he only gets to call 2 special sessions of 30 days each per fiscal year. If he wants/needs more, he needs to declare a state of emergency.

I also like the idea of limiting the Congress to the total number of laws on the books. If 10,000 is the limit and they want to add three more, they have to eliminate three from those currently in force. As long as they face no limits, no restraints, restrictions or consequences, they will act like . . . the Congress we currently have.

[GailA]

btt

[King Black Robe]

I liked this one a lot the FIRST time I read it as well. LOL! For some reason I didn't remember it was the same article. You know, new location and all. LOL!

[goldstategop]

I won't voluntarily obey the SCOTUS decision. My response is the same as Andrew Jackson's to Justice Marshall about a certain decision that flouted the Constitution: "now let the court try to enforce it."

[King Black Robe]

Okay I'm confused. Is there a list of all your posted articles? It's rough going back through my posts to find them.