Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 47

The Supreme Court surprised many people December 10, upholding the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's restrictions on soft money and sham issue ads. The federal campaign landscape has been transformed. But what does it mean for state judicial races? Eyes on Justice asked some experts.

The statute "regulates not only federal elections and federal parties and candidates, says Professor Roy Schotland at the Georgetown University Law Center, "but also state and local parties and candidates who are running at the same time as any federal candidate. The statutory provisions on 'federal election activity' will be getting much attention."

"The immediate upshot is that states will now have far more latitude to regulate sham 'issue ads' and corporate participation in their own elections," says Mark Glaze at the Campaign Legal Center. "Legislatures aren't forbidden by the federal constitution from an outright ban on corporate and union election spending, both in the form of contributions and sham 'issue ads.' Now states can do the same, insofar as such laws would be consistent with their own state constitutions."

Deborah Goldberg at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law agrees: "For those of you whose legislatures left on the books disclosure laws based on a BCRA-like test (even though they were struck down), there is an opportunity now to go back to the courts to reopen the cases, have them reversed, and reinstate your laws. For those of you whose laws were removed from the books, there is an opportunity to reintroduce those laws and regulate sham issue ads.

Indeed, adds J.J. Gass at the Brennan Center, "in states with a BCRA-type regime in place, the Chamber of Commerce and labor ads run in 2000 and 2002 would have been prohibited unless they were run by separate committees that would accept donations from individual officers and directors of corporations and from union members. In all instances, there would have been disclosure of who paid for any particular ad-as soon as a contract was signed to produce or air an ad."

Because of the new restrictions on the use of state money, "some state parties could have an incentive to park their soft money elsewhere, like judicial races," says Professor Raymond J. LaRaja at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

"Direct mail will clearly be more important," predicts William Miller, political director at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in a conversation with Legal Times about the general effects of BCRA. "Telephoning will be more important, full-page ads, billboards, yard signs." Since 2002, the Chamber has put 50 workers in 32 states to organize local business leaders and community members.

Citizens and civic groups may have a new tool to use in pressing for more media coverage of judicial elections, adds the Campaign Legal Center. In upholding BCRA's provision that broadcasters keep public files on requests for campaign ad time, the Court noted that this provision could be used to help decide, "whether broadcasters are too heavily favoring entertainment, and discriminating against broadcasts devoted to public affairs."

HOORAY For John!

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

Update
I've already tested the idea of my in-your-face challenge ads, first in the print media and then deliberately illegal on TV, with certain editors I have a long relationship with. I could trust these two gentlemen, one in the print media and the other in the broadcast media, with a "heads up" on what I am planning. Both said they wanted to know, in advance, when I am about to do this.

The bottom line is clear. If I am willing to put my neck on the line, with the possibilities of a fine and jail time, THAT effort will put CFR back on the front page in all media. And that is part of the point. There's not much value of going in-your-face against the enemies of the First Amendment unless the press takes up the story and spreads the word. It is now clear they will do exactly that.

Update 2
QUICK PROGRESS REPORT, ANSWERING A SUPPORTER'S QUESTION:
We have about 15% of the needed 1,000 sign-ups.

Spread the word, direct folks to the front page link on my website.

Google-bomb the phrase "anti-CFR" directing readers to that page and link. (We're already #2 and #4 on Google.)

Target date is now August, since the NC primary looks to be put back to September. (Remember, the ad isn't illegal until the 29th day before the election.)

Cordially,

John / Billybob

Note if you are interested in more on this please contact myself or Congressman Billybob

uh huh...and who decides if the media is offering a "level playing field?" Who regulates the advertising dollars that keep shows on or off the air? Even if you overlook the fact that the media is nothing more than a bunch of corporate conglomerates with special interests of their own, wouldn't a "public affairs" show be subject to the same kind of corruption, distortion and in-kind contributions through advertising dollars that the so-called "sham" ads are subject to?

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.