Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 17 December 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[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?

[Dog Gone]

I am more than happy to end this conversation, O ye who "slandered" me in practically every post.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Oh my yes. At no 39. Isn't that how you found this thread afterall? The lists all run off wid elipses... (that's one popular chick!)

You've bin on me stalwart list for a vury long tym. Do u si err or whasp?

[Sir_Ed]

"The Court said it might revisit the decision based on the facts as they arise."

Yeah, they'll revisit it...and extend the 1st Amendment censoring to the print media, cable and internet.

really, really sad...I still haven't gotten over the shock of losing our rights like that.

Ed

I sent you my email addy, btw.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I'm new to this thread..and haven't read all the posts, so please forgive this if it's a duplicate question.

Are you looking for donations to run the ad during the "blackout period"? If so, wouldn't it be a legal ad since it's paid for by a grass roots organization that isn't incorporated?

Or are you looking to challenge the "you can't mention a candidate by name" provision?

Be kind...I'm trying to sort through this law ;^)

Thanks.

[nicmarlo]

don't know if you were pinged or saw this yet, PKM, but here's some info. on the ad. Have I missed your analysis of the SCOTUS Opinion, Congressman (or is it still aworkin')? : )

[SierraWasp]

Ok! Just checkin, Tanks!!!

[4CJ]

CB, if too much advance publicity occurs, what is to prevent a judge from issuing an injunction to prevent the broadcast?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Congressman Billybob]

Because of the "must carry" provision, a judge cannot issue an injunction without violating the law, himself.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

I will carry out the sad duty of analyzing the McConnell case at the end of the month. It will be published on the American Civil Rights Union website. I won't post that on FR, but I will make a link available.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

Yes, the ad will be during the blackout period. Yes, the ad will be cosponsored by a corporation (thus making it clearly illegal). And yes, it will attack a federal candidate or two by name, which is also illegal.

John / Billybob

[nicmarlo]

Thank you for your service, CB....a very sad duty that is, yes.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[4CJ]

Because of the "must carry" provision, a judge cannot issue an injunction without violating the law, himself.

But if an action is illegal, as this would now be, what would stop a judge from determining that the CFR aspect - just decided in 2003, outweighs the federal law regarding "must carry", and issuing an injuction to the local media? Or is that inconceivable?

[4CJ]

And yes, it will attack a federal candidate or two by name, which is also illegal.

Are you going to call Ted Kennedy a murdering pandering, pot-bellied drunken pig, or write anything about "Leaky" Leahy?

You might stir up some more interest ;o)

[Congressman Billybob]

The essence of the First Amendment is "no prior restraint." It would be both a terrible error and a public relations nightmare for any judge to issue such an order. You're chasing a red herring.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

We have enough home-grown political bums in North Carolina. If John Edwards still exists at that time, he would be a good target.

John / Billybob

[4CJ]

It would be both a terrible error and a public relations nightmare for any judge to issue such an order. You're chasing a red herring.

Sorry sir, I just want to know that the ad will be placed. The Supreme Court's decision was ludicrous, and it must be overturned.

[Joy Angela]

IMPEACHMENT IS FOREVER - HAPPY CLINTON IMPEACHMENT DAY!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1043404/posts


But in 2004, Hillary will have the CFR Act to keep
America from remembering the truth
about the Clinton Administration!

Thanks to the Campaign Finance Reform Act,
all the Voters will ever remember will be lies, lies
and more Living History lies.

Is Hillary a good planner, or what?

[sauropod]

I'm in.

[San Jacinto]

I-yay ill-way end-say ou-yay y-may mail-e-way o-say ou-yay an-cay ontact-cay e-may. O-tay?