Daily Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 8

Houston Star Telagram ^

[Valin]

All speech is equal, but ... By Don Erler Special to the Star-Telegram

Once upon a time, the "marketplace of ideas" determined how voters would decide elections. Just as General Motors, Toyota and BMW compete in the automotive marketplace for our business, so did candidates, parties and groups of interested citizens battle for our votes.

Now campaigns have become so highly regulated that freedom of speech and press is now prohibited for specified voters and groups within the last 60 days of a general election.

In order to reduce the ap-pearance of corruption caused by money in the political process, Congress determined last year (and President Bush agreed) that some political speech cannot be tolerated.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (or BCRA, known as "McCain-Feingold" to many citizens) is perfectly consistent with the First Amendment. That's the one that reads in part: "Congress shall make no law … abridging freedom of speech, or of the press."

Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, observing that if the highest estimate of political spending for the 2000 election is correct, then "Americans spent about half as much electing all their nation's officials, state and federal, as they spent on movie tickets. … If our democracy is drowning from this much spending, it cannot swim."

Justice Clarence Thomas added that the only marketplace of ideas still open is the one for "defamers, nude dancers, pornographers, flag burners and cross burners" (all supported in legal rulings identified by Thomas).

BCRA picks favorites. The law exempts Internet and print media from the proscription of comments designed to influence voter choices during the last 60 days of a campaign. And it distinguishes between media companies, which can say whatever they choose about candidates, and other corporations, which are severely restricted.

The "problem" that Congress tried to correct (and the Supremes ratified) is that groups of interested citizens would air radio and TV ads during campaigns that made clear who, for example, supported abortion rights (NARAL), opposed gun ownership (NRA) or advocated affirmative action (NAACP).

And these "issue ads," permitted under a previous court decision, were really disguised efforts to engage in "express advocacy" for or against identified candidates (which could be prohibited under that previous decision).

How did this shift away from free-market speech come about?

Very smart people persuaded judges.

For example, in a celebrated 1993 essay in Boston Review, University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein argued that campaign finance reform could include full "public financing" and severe "curbs on contributions to or expenditures by political action committees." He thought that "democratic deliberation" should replace the "marketplace of ideas."

But Sunstein also suggested that media companies should be subject to the same kind of regulation as campaign fi-nance -- all, of course, in the interest of dem-ocratic deliberation.

In his perceptive dissent, Thomas alone noticed the obvious. Media companies clearly try to influence elections. Candidates are be-holden to them for endorsements and favorable reporting. It's just a matter of time, Thomas predicted, before Congress will move to regulate these special interests.

After all, he wrote, by the logic of the BCRA ruling, the press "now operates at the whim of Congress."

So companies like Knight Ridder (parent of the Star-Telegram) that have traditionally competed in the media marketplace might become subject to the same regulations that apply to NARAL, the NRA and the NAACP.

Happy holidays.

[Valin]

Yesterdays Thread
Daily Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 7
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1042010/posts?page=13

[4CJ]

Now campaigns have become so highly regulated that freedom of speech and press is now prohibited for specified voters and groups within the last 60 days of a general election.

RIP 1^st Amendment. *sniff*

[Valin]

If you want on or off this daily Campaign Finance Reform list let me know.

[Valin]

It would be interesting to see just what The Houston Star Telagram, and Knight Ridder's view on this was last year.

[StriperSniper]

Washington Journal on C-SPAN had Wayne LaPierre on this morning discussing CFR. I just caught the end around 8:30 ET.

[DaGman]

Point of clarification... The Star-Telegram is in Ft. Worth.

[Valin]

I knew that. I was just checking to see if anyone would catch it.





That's my story and I'm stickin with it!

[4CJ]

It would be interesting to see just what The Houston Star Telagram, and Knight Ridder's view on this was last year.

I could be wrong, but I doubt that the media was against BCFR. Maybe if they were limited to $2000 per election, they would have protested as well. As it stands, the media will have a field day campaigning editorializing for candidates that meet their approval.

Term limits are the real "Campaign Finance Reform".

[Congressman Billybob]

Good morning, my friend,

Thank you for your efforts to keep this issue front burner by putting up a daily thread. If and only if you think it a good idea, please include a link to my corrected "Hugh, Series" thread. Folks who are mad as Hell ought to have an opportunity to use their anger productively.

IMHO.

John / Billybob

[DustyMoment]

IMO, we I think that most people with functioning brains (conservatives) now understand the ramifications of BCRA (CFR). Reiterating the obvious for the mind-numbed remainder of society is somewhat pointless, other than the fact that, if columnists keep writing about the SC's decision and the effects on the 1st Amendment, a few other folks might wake up and realize that a fundamental part of our society and one of the most important philosophies in the history of the world has been changed.

What is needed now is for these columnists to start promoting a plan of action. Those of us on this thread know what the plan of action is but, the harsh reality is that we need to hear from others speaking out about this abominal law and the equally abominable SC ruling. We have been quite outspoken about what we think but, let's be frank, without a heck of a lot more coverage, we end up looking like a tiny buch of nut cakes.

Hannity has barely covered it, Boortz has mentioned it and now he's moved on. I haven't heard Rush lately to see if he is still pushing it and I haven't heard of any conservative radio talk show hosts issuing a clarion call to fight this law and the SC ruling. If these folks let it die and leave it to bleed in the street, there isn't a snowball's chance in a hot place that we will succeed in repealing BCRA.

I have talked to a few people about BCRA and they believe that it is all about campaign contributions; they have no clue that their 1st Amendment rights have been destroyed. To quote some columnists a long time back - "Where is the outrage?"

[Valin]

You talked me into to it, you silver tongued devil!

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

[DustyMoment]

I might also add that, under CFR (as I understand it), within 30 or 60 days of an election, since individuals can still purchase "issue ads", this means we could be subjected to ads presented by the likes of:
1. George Soros
2. Bill Gates
3. Ted Turner
4. Michael Eisner
5. Babs
6. Ted Kennedy
7. Jesse Jackson
8. Michael Moore

In fairness, we could also see ads presented by:
1. Rush Limbaugh
2. (A conservative to be named later)
3. (Another conservative to be named later)
4. Etc.

Do we see the problem here? If issue ads from special interest groups are outlawed within the "gag" window, but issue ads by individuals are allowed, these are some of the individuals with the resources to produce issue ads. This becomes more substantive proof of why Rush labeled CFR as the Incumbent Protection Act.

[Valin]

It's interesting not only this editorial but one in the Washington Post(no you read that right Washington Post)both coming out against BCRA (CFR).
If you go to google, type in "Robert J. Samuelson", cklick on news tab, Sorted by relevance you can read it w/o having to subscribe to that paper.

I'm going to play the role of "littlte miss mary sunshine" and say we could be seeing the start of something.

My two cents worth (and worth just about that much).
What I think happened is the USSC in signing off on this was sending a message to both the President and Congress that they were not going keep cleaning up the messes made by the congress and the president by passing and signing blatantly unconstitutional laws.
Just a thought.

[Valin]

Shameless plug bump

[Eastbound]

"Term limits are the real "Campaign Finance Reform"".

Yes, I believe that too. There had to be some reason both parties endorsed this. It's like pay raises for congress. They all jump on board when it benefits them personally, rather than the public. CFR is stealth anti-term limits propaganda. And the culprits were willing to assault the First Amendment to push it through.

[Eastbound]

Ping/bump

[Smile-n-Win]

And it distinguishes between media companies, which can say whatever they choose about candidates, and other corporations, which are severely restricted.

So the other corporations will buy influence in the media companies instead of directly buying issue ads. The "influence of money" is still there, only in a different form. (Interestingly, a welcome side effect of this unconstitutional law may be that conservatives will now finally buy themselves some media rather than just pay for ads.)

[The_Eaglet]

McCain-Feingold(from the blogasphere) -Daily Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 27