Posted on 12/10/2003 7:09:03 AM PST by July 4th
Have no idea either, but the hyperbole is flowing like wine isn't it.
Do you honestly believe that the leftist media (like the Los Angeles Times, for example) will refrain from publishing "propoganda" and "dirt" in the days leading up to an election? Perhaps you should review some of the "news" that came out just prior to the California recall...
;>)
This is pathetic. SCOTUS once again is the tyrants in black robes.
This law is unconstitutional and not worthy of being followed by me. If I'm doing some project that breaks the 60 day law, I won't care, and won't be going to jail for it either.
Who's "your guy"? Harry Browne?
Oops, I can't say that! Free Speech is prohibited!
LMAO!
There are significant political ramifications from this decision, and I have every confidence that the folks at the RNC (those that aren't dangling at the end of ropes hung around rafters right now) are revisiting their advertising gameplan to process these new rules.
Oh, and yes. We're DOOMED! LOL
LOL! Looks like you are in a corner.
BTW, it is funny how you dismiss Clinton's appointees for voting for this.
Did he convince the President that the law would be overturned, or did he convince him that, on balance, the law hurt the Democrats?
Or perhaps national "newspapers" that pop up and are mailed en mass, filled to the gills with advocacy positions cast as opinions and commentary, that only publish for 60 days every two or four years.
I would be willing to contribute to help do that just to tweak Big Brother's nose.
The NRA’s deliciously absurd plan | Jim Babka
Many close observers of the Supreme Court expect a ruling in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA – better known as McCain-Feingold) case McConnell v. FEC before the High Court goes home for Christmas break on December 15.
The National Rifle Association (NRA), one of the plaintiffs in McConnell, is already planning its next move. Even if only a threat, it’s a strategy you could easily imagine John Cleese of Monty Python fame coming up with – acting absurd to illustrate the absurdity of the law.
It’s a beautiful idea.
Under present law institutional media organizations like ABC or CNN, are able to say what they want about candidates and spend corporate funds to do so. But under the new BCRA law, the NRA is now banned from spending its corporate funds (just before elections) to say what they want to say about candidates using the same media outlets.
So over the weekend, the NRA’s executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told the Associated Press, “We're looking at bringing a court case that we're as legitimate a media outlet as Disney or Time-Warner. Why should they have an exclusive right to relay information to the public, and why should not NRA be considered as legitimate a news source as they are? That's never been explored legally.”
Well, almost never.
Congressman Ron Paul, et al. (Paul v. FEC), another plaintiff group in the McConnell case [BTW, Gun Owners of America was one of the plaintiffs in Paul v. FEC -- Law], denied that the government had the constitutional authority to regulate anyone, big or little, exercising their constitutional “press” freedoms. They argued that “Joe Mimeograph” (as one Justice cleverly titled the hypothetical citizen activist) has just as much constitutional right to Freedom of the Press as the New York Times does. On that theory, most of the campaign finance laws come tumbling down.
Meanwhile, the NRA itself only addressed the related issue of the discriminatory nature of conferring special privileges to the institutional media. They assumed the government had the power to regulate everyone, but argued that if the government was going to exempt the institutional press as a matter of legislative grace they had to avoid triggering Fifth Amendment prohibited discrimination by also exempting groups like the NRA.
The line between the institutional media and anyone else seeking to inform the public is quite tangled and increasingly less clear – despite Supreme Court attempts to settle the question. And the defendants in the McConnell case (the Brennan Center, Senators McCain and Feingold, Common Cause, etc.) all were quite clear that they intended to keep pushing the envelope with new legislation in future years. Justice Kennedy in particular seemed disenchanted by the endless stream of new cases.
Perhaps the NRA is engaged in the ultimate of comic parodies. If the Court persists in drawing such fine lines, the NRA appears all-too-willing to blur them – giving Justice Kennedy yet another case.
By acting absurd, the NRA garners comic and perhaps legal attention to the idea that incumbent politicians shouldn’t be drawing such lines. After all, politicians aren’t exactly neutral observers.
And if the Supreme Court insists on twisting the First Amendment so that there’s a discriminatory distinction between the institutional media and Joe Mimeograph, perhaps the best solution for individuals and groups like the NRA is to take the Paul plaintiffs’ argument to its logical conclusion – become the Media. “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.”
Still, the best of all possibilities is that the Court rules that Congressman Paul and his friends are right and Freedom of the Press applies to everyone. The “Gordian Knot” of campaign finance law cannot be untangled – it should be cut. Not only should BCRA be overturned, but the limits and reporting requirements grudgingly approved in the landmark decision Buckley v. Valeo, should be scrapped as well. Only by getting the government out of the business of regulating Joe Mimeograph’s rights can Free Press rights truly be protected. Justice Kennedy’s apparent desire to see an end to such cases would be satisfied.
But no matter what the outcome of the McConnell case, the NRA’s Pythonesque potential next move is beautiful. If the majority of the Court insists on being absurd, the NRA will serve them up an even greater absurdity.
What a delicious possibility.
Oh yeah...that's why he signed the clearly unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill. Any why he just signed a bill which significantly expanded entitlements (Medicare) that aren't constitutional in the first place. And while I agree with our effort in Iraq I'm going to point out that a "constitution minded" president would have had Congress pass an actual declaration of war first. While Bush is not nearly the enemy of the Constitution that Clinton was, Gore would have been, or any of the 9 dwarves could be, he certainly doesn't meet the description of "constitution minded."
I'm not really fond of the UN controling all of the US
Ya know, sometimes ya just got to tell it like it is. But you are right, they only repealed it when it matters, in the 2 months before an election. And to think that the prohibition on issue ads by citizens right before an election is not the repeal of the first amnedment is more illogical than anything I can think of.
No, I'm not unbalanced or illogical, I'm putting it in a way that can be understood. I'm sorry if that wounds your sensibilites.
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.