Dissecting the Principles Underlying Campaign Finance Reform-Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 45

Summary: "Soft money" means money spent by non-establishment organizations; "hard money" means money spent by established organizations (CNN, The Washington Post, etc.)

The unacknowledged principle behind the recently passed House of Representatives "campaign finance reform" bill:
Established media giants (CBS, ABC, New York Times) have a constitutional right to be free of restrictions on what they air or publish. (This of course is correct).

Non-established, or less established, media people/organizations/individuals have no such constitutional right to promote the candidates, policies, and ideas they desire. The money these entities spend is called "soft money" and "soft money" is bad. Therefore, "soft money" must be outlawed.

Clearly, something is amiss here. The people who support this bill certainly know that there's a double standard. Either they do not care, or they favor supporting free speech rights for some entities while not supporting them for others.
Either way, their motives are more than suspect. Either way, this is a dangerous limitation on free speech by allowing it for some and restricting it for others.

Make sure you keep plain English and clear thinking in mind as you read about the intellectual somersaults involved in passing this legislation (which President Bush is kind-of, sort-of promising to sign).
"Soft money" means money spent by non-establishment organizations;
"hard money" means money spent by established organizations (CNN, The Washington Post, etc.)

Anyone who reads these established newspapers or watches these established networks knows their slant towards Big Government, paternalistic liberalism. The reason that smaller, less known publications, websites and media outlets exist is because they offer alternatives to this typical way of thinking.
If one of these smaller entities or organizations wants to support a candidate with less well known and (at least at present) less popular ideas, then it will be restricted from spending; if NBC or CNN or ABC want to broadcast an hour long interview of, say, Hillary Rodham Clinton (when she runs for President in 2004 or 2008), there will be no such restriction. It's considered free speech.

The bill is enormously complex and contradictory. Who even knows what the final version the President signs (if he does indeed sign it) will be? Who knows how many of the legislators will even read the bill they passed?
It could all backfire from the point-of-view of its supporters, as is so often the case. But the very fact that such a bill -- based on such blatantly unfair, erroneous and wrong principles -- has passed the House is bad news for freedom and equality.

A people whose elected leaders so seriously misunderstand their country's own fundamental principles -- and even openly evade them -- cannot indefinitely remain free in an increasingly hostile world.

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

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.