Posted on 12/22/2007 8:22:52 AM PST by khnyny
As I have traveled the country in connection with my campaign for President, I have been inspired by the commitment of countless Americans to shaping the future of America's political system. Their commitment takes many different forms, from distributing literature, to attending a campaign rally, to contributing money to an individual candidate. I applaud this involvement, even if it is not supportive of my candidacy. An informed and active citizenry is vital to the long-term health of our political system.
Washington's back-scratching political class apparently sees it differently. A few years ago, they locked arms around a measure sponsored by Senators John McCain, a Republican, and Russ Feingold, a Democrat, imposing unprecedented restrictions on the political activities of everyday Americans. Initiatives that had been legal for as long as anyone could remember were suddenly transformed into sanctionable offenses, all under the guise of "campaign finance reform."
I have not spent a career in politics, but I know enough about the laws of this country, and the way Washington works, to understand that the McCain-Feingold law is riddled with shortcomings.
Let's start with something basic: the American people should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without burdensome limitations. Indeed, such advocacy can play an important educational role in elections, helping to provide information to voters on a range of issues. Do we really want government telling us when we can engage in political speech, and what form it can take?
Yet McCain-Feingold prohibits some non-profits from broadcasting messages that mention the name of a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or in the months leading up to the general election.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
This Free Speech Blackout Period – also called the "electioneering communications ban" – is contrary to the spirit of a free and open issues debate. It also has the perverse effect of silencing some non-profit groups while empowering special interest groups.
As syndicated columnist George Will has pointed out, McCain-Feingold "regulates the quantity, timing and content of political speech … making it increasingly acceptable for interest groups to attempt to advance their social agendas by limiting their adversaries' speech."
CFR is Fred Thompson’s legacy. At least McCain achieved something in his life.
This is the most liberal piece of legislation coming out of DC in the last 25 years and two to those fools behind it are now running for POTUS..as republicans.
They are clearly in the wrong party.
The liberal media hounds have been given reign and control over who they pass on FREE advertising campaign dollars, they call the NEWS. And not one candidate that benefits is required to disclose these campaign ads as contributions.
Funny, at least Thompson has acknowledged his mistake on this legislation and said he was wrong (except for raising the amount of money individuals could donate).
Mitt has just changed his ‘opinion’ about all of his mistakes and many of the other candidates are just plain wrong about most of the issues.
If you have a “perfect” candidate, please let us know.
Who gleefully signed into law?
That’s right. From another source in ‘01:
[”If McCain-Feingold passes, it will not have happened if it weren’t for Fred Thompson,” said McCain’s chief of staff, Mark Salter, on Wednesday evening.]
Sorry without campaign finance reform it’s unlikely that a conservative will ever be nominated again. Liberals are able to raise more ‘free’ $peech. Dems are outraising the GOP and among the GOP, conservatives are at the bottom collecting ‘free speech’.
The fundamental flaw is that it’s unconstitutional (I don’t care what SCOTUS said).
I remember people telling me what a genius move that was. He gets credit for signing “reform” and SCOTUS will obviously over turn it. Best of both worlds. Uh huh.
The secondary flaw is any attempt to limit feee speech.
It was signed by the WH. It was not veto proof.
Paging Captain Obvious! Paging Captain Obvious!
Here’s another article that mentions Laura Ingraham’s interview with Thompson (as you probably know, Laura has a constitutional law background):
Snippet:
Fred Thompson, running for President as the “plain-speaking consistent conservative,” was asked about campaign finance reform by Laura Ingraham on her radio show the day after his Presidential announcement. She said, “One of the things that also happened in the Senate was McCain-Feingold and it was initially called McCain-Feingold-Thompson. Of course that’s campaign finance reform. As you know, Senator Thompson, the Supreme Court has struck down part of that as unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds, you know, issue ads that you can’t run before a general election or a primary contest, which for conservatives like me are just anathema to the First Amendment. You now say that you see unintended consequences resulting from campaign finance reform. Would you today tell us that you made a mistake in supporting campaign finance reform?”
However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections.
I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment.
I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.
The important point to consider in this is that it was originally called “McCain-Feingold-Thompson”.
The one who signed it is not a candidate for office next year.
How many other infringements will you put up with?
What's that got to do with blaming the dems for this bill?
This is ironic given Mitt Romney’s past support for publically financed elections, campaign spending limits, and abolishing political action committees.
Here’s what Newt Gingrich had to say about McCain-Feingold-Thompson:
The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law enacted in 2002 is an equally dangerous modern-day assault on the First Amendment. It could more accurately be called the McCain-Feingold censorship law because it stifles political speech, protects incumbent politicians and consolidates power in Washington. This law is of the Congress, by the Congress, and for the Congress, because it protects members of Congress by silencing opposing points of view.
There’s another side of this story that many here are conveniently ignoring. It is not ‘ordinary everyday Americans’ that are preempted from running a blitz of candidate promotions in a blackout period but rather an elite group of wealthy special interests that fund those expensive ads.
There is no question that $$$s buy slick and strong advertising in all media and there is a high correlation that voters will not vote for someone that cannot get their message through. Ergo, the candidates backed by power brokers usually win.
CFR was an attempt to disconnect the wealthy string pullers from their paid-for candidate puppets.
I, for one, saw the unrestricted Swift Boat ads to be very effective against John F’n Kerry. So CFR did not appear to me to restrict any free speech other than what I have described above.
It’s Bedford Falls or Pottersville, take your pick.
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.