Excuse me for asking this, but what about the Constitutionality of this provision? Amendment #1: Congress shall make no law restricting speech or the exercise thereof.
Doesn't leave any room for reporting requirements on your speech.
We know it's unconstitutional. Why doesn't anyone say that?
Doesn't matter. The Constitution is what some judge says it is...
McCain-Feingold is also unconstitutional but the Supreme Court gods didn't see it that way.
So we are stuck with legislation that may not be constitutional but it stands until it is ruled unconstitutional BY the Supreme Court. The Legislative Branch is not prohibited from submitted such law, the question is only whether it will stand.
We probably would do better to quote the First Amendment exactly:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.The proposal would have outlawed communicating with 500 people on politics without filling out a form. If you went to a rally of 501 people and cheered a political speech, you'd have been in violation if this proposed law if it were ever in force. And posting on FR? Forget it.That bill proposed tyranny.
"We know it's unconstitutional. Why doesn't anyone say that?"
So was the CFR law. Still is.