Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob

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

[SC Swamp Fox]

As a candidate I can get the ad on the air. By using a corporation to produce it, I can force the authorities either to come after me, or abandon the law. Both sides of the equation are necessary to make this work.

Aren't most campaign ads produced by a corporation?

[SC Swamp Fox]

My question in post #61 was framed much better by BillF in post #59.

[BillF]

The 60 day rule blocks issue-advocacy corporate entities such as Right to Life and NRA on the right and NARAL and Sierra Club on the left from running certain ads within 60 days of a general federal election. (Similar 30 day rule applies to federal primary elections.)

The ads that are blocked are radio and TV ads that mention or show a candidate (favorably, unfavorably or otherwise).

An example shows the outrage of this law. Suppose Senator Phil. A. Buster is running for re-election and is undecided about a pending bill to require parental consent for underage girls to get abortions.

Right to Life wants to run a TV or radio ad urging citizens to call Senator Buster and tell him to vote for the bill. They can't do it within 60 days of the general election.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

DO you know what the fines and punishment would be. I would like to know what I am going to get you into...

[SC Swamp Fox]

If you are a candidate your ad will be legal even if produced for you by a corportation.

Even if we don't think it is, the government could let the ad run without taking any action and simply point to your candidacy if questioned as to the reason why.

If we are to really test the law the infraction would have to be blatent. The only way to do that would be with the consent of the media outlet. Who knows, we could find a radio or TV station that will play along just for the free publicity. They aren't subject to penalties if they run the ad, are they?

[4CJ]

Y'all and I can post on this thread all comments like those on the original thread EXCEPT for mentions of money. I look forward to hearing from you.

I'm certainly not disparaging JimRob, nor FreeRepublic, but it's almost funny that a prior thread on upholding the Constitution as WRITTEN, and not as interpreted by 5 "bigots", is pulled because we were dicussing ways to force the "free speech" issue.

We are told that we must bow in obedience to the Supremes, who in their infinite wisdom, have decreed that speech is not speech. They have already decreed that abortion is legal, that school prayer is illegal, that sodomy is contitutionally protected, that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean what is written, that individual privacies are no longer guaranteed. Additionally the court has ruled against commonsense and the people of America in a plethora of other issues that were, and still are, beyond their purview.

Next year we'll probably hear that gay marriage is legal; that pedophilia and bestiality are protected; that God must be struck from our pledges, oaths, currency and goverment buildings. Maybe they'll rule that the federal government can shut down web-sites protesting their unconstitutional actions. I thought this was the United States of America, not some two-bit dictatorship in some third-world

The founders certainly didn't give up when King George demanded they capitulate. They rose up and demanded freedom, and when it was denied, fought for their independence and God-given rights.

Maybe we should refer to SCOTUS as the "Borg" due to the insistence that "resistance is futile - we will be assimilated".

[AppyPappy]

I still think Jim has too much exposure in this.

[BillF]

Aren't most campaign ads produced by a corporation?

Right, but I think when we're talking here about corporations, we mean corporations OTHER than the campaign itself.

("Friends of Cong. Rascal," "Dean for America," etc. may well be corporations, but they are NOT subject to the 30/60 rules as they are the corporations of the campaign itself, i.e., they are the official corporate arms of the candidate's campaign.)

[Brellium]

I'll remind everyone that Billybob's last ditch defense depends on a group of 12 people who were too stupid to get out of Jury duty.

[SC Swamp Fox]

I concur, but I still think the point you made in #59 is spot on. The ad will fall into one of the two categories.

If it falls into category #1 it doesn't break the law.
If it falls into category #2 the media outlet rejects it, unless they are "in" on the challenge.

[kimmie7]

I'll remind everyone that Billybob's last ditch defense depends on a group of 12 people who were too stupid to get out of Jury duty.

Or responsible, civic-minded individuals as represented in these find forums.

[Congressman Billybob]

JimRob knows what I'm talking about because he pulled the plug on the first thread, for good reason. What remains is okay.

JimRob's choice is to let the conversation continue. When and if it gets down to go/no go on the final ad, I won't have that conversation here on FR. That'll be outside on the regular Internet.

JimRob has no exposure here. I'm the point man on this mission.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

As Mark Twain said, the only problem with the jmury system is finding everyday twelve people who don't know anything and can't read.

If I wanted safety and security, I would have made different choices and been a different person.

And I would have gound the folks on FreeRepublic scary, rather than great.

I'm 60. It's too late to change. LOL.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

I, as the candidate, will place the ad.

But in the ad, I will name the brand-new corporation that paid for the ad and supports it and agrees with it.

Bingo. Law broken. Issue squarely presented. Make sense to you?

John / Billybob

P.S. Since all I do now is Supreme Court cases, and I'm about to give that up, I'm a "recovering attorney" also.

[Congressman Billybob]

Produced? Yes.

Sponsored and paid for? No.

John / Billybob

[BillF]

I guess so, but I'd probably have to apply the "when all else fails, read the statute" rule to fully appreciate your plan.

Hope that somehow this 30/60 law can be invalidated, avoided, or repealed. God bless you for your efforts.

[Lancey Howard]

I was among those who said not to worry, that the SCOTUS would jettison this CFR idiocy just on the face of it. It's the First freakin' Amendment, I said. Boy, was I wrong! Like John said, the votes of the four scumbags came as no surprise, but when O'Connor joined them, it was a stunner. Now everybody figures O'Connor went senile since she used to (generally) have respect for the Constitution when she was younger.

At least we now know that it's a whole new ballgame and we certainly don't want this court ruling on anything else of any real Constitutional import. Presumably, people who may have been planning challenges to certain examples of judicial activism in the hope of restoring some Constitutional values are pulling back for the time being. I only hope it's not too late.

[fightu4it]

"The 30- and 60-day ad bans apply ONLY to broadcast media, radio and television."

The newspapers must have been lobbying for MF. Just imagine the number of full page ads we are going to see. I can almost hear my local yellow rag licking it's chops.

[Yossarian]

Please include me in discussions. I retain the right to pull out, as I don't have a lot of funds to spend on a court case. I also want to see just what the exposure is for John and any supporters.

Sorry if that sounds far more cowardly than our founding fathers, but that's where I'm at right now.

[zeugma]

Put me on your ping list when we get things definitely nailed down. I'm not sure the scenario you initially described would completely run afoul of the law. We need to make sure that whatever is done be absolutely and unequivocally illegal, or it's a waste of time and effort.