Posted on 12/26/2003 4:16:50 AM PST by rhema
The First Amendment died earlier this month.
And if the First Amendment is dead, can we honestly claim to be a democratic republic any more?
This is not hyperbole. Imagine you’re at a meeting of civically minded folks and it’s nearly Election Day. Your Congressman is just about to vote on an issue of great concern to your group. You suggest that it’s time to pass around a hat, collect some money, and buy an add alerting your neighbors – urging them to call the Congressman. You collect the money, and the next morning you go to buy your ad.
You think you’re being a good American – getting involved in the democratic process. After all, the First Amendment said you have the freedom to associate – which you did, with other civically-minded people. That same amendment also said you have a right to petition for redress of grievances, and that you have free speech and press rights – so you can make a commercial that might reflect poorly on your Congressman.
After all, this is America.
But if you haven’t filed for your “license,” you’d be wrong. You need to become familiar with a complex web of laws, or you need to hire the consultants, lawyers, and accountants who already are familiar with those decrees – before you GO to your local station, even before you collect the proverbial $200. Because if you don’t, then you’ll go directly to jail.
Who came up with such an idea? Why, incumbent politicians of course. It bothers them to be criticized. They’ll grudgingly put up with it from their opponents because challengers usually can’t raise sufficient money to publicly and effectively broadcast similar criticism, and they haven’t (yet) found a “Supreme Court-sanctioned” method for suppressing their opponents.
But if you and your neighbors discuss an incumbent’s record in a paid commercial, those are now called “sham issue ads.” According to the majority of the Supreme Court, you need government approval to criticize a politician.
However, Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy were a bit old-fashioned. They said this new law, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), better known as McCain-Feingold, violated free speech and free press rights.
Just in case you think I’m full of hyperbole, or something worse – that I’ve overstated the damage done to the First Amendment or that the members of Congress who supported this bill had good intentions – consider these quotes that Justice Scalia cut and pasted into his judicial opinion:
“This bill is about slowing the ad war… making sure the flow of negative ads by outside interest groups does not continue to permeate the airwaves” - Senator Maria Cantwell, D-WA
“These so-called issues ads... directly attack candidates without any accountability. It is brutal… We have an opportunity in the McCain-Feingold bill to stop that…” - Senator Barbara Boxer, D-CA
“I think these issue advocacy ads are a nightmare. I think all of us should hate them… [By passing the legislation], we could get some of this poison politics off television.” - The late Senator Paul Wellstone, D-MN
Justice Thomas closed his opinion by predicting that the institutional press had seen their rights downgraded to a privilege, granted by the good graces of Congress. He wrote,
Media corporations are influential…What is to stop a future Congress from determining that the press is “too influential,” and that the “appearance of corruption” is significant when media organizations endorse candidates or run “slanted” or “biased” news stories…? …what is to stop a future Congress from concluding that the availability of unregulated media corporations creates a loophole that allows for easy circumvention of the limitations of the current campaign finance laws?
Indeed, I believe that longstanding and heretofore unchallenged opinions such as Miami Herald v. Tornillo, are in peril… Now, supporters… need only argue that the press capacity to manipulate popular opinion, gives rise to an “appearance of corruption”… After drumming up some evidence, laws regulating media outlets in their issuance of editorials would be upheld under the [Majority’s] reasoning.
“…Although today’s opinion does not expressly strip the press of First Amendment protection, there is no principle of law or logic that would prevent the application of the Court’s reasoning in that setting. The press now operates at the whim of Congress.”
Days before McCain-Feingold was to be debated in the US Senate, columnist George Will called an old colleague, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation. He got right to the point, “I hope you and yours are doing everything you can to defeat McCain-Feingold in the House.” Weyrich said his troops were gearing up as they spoke. To which Will replied, “I assumed that was the case, but I wanted to be sure. This is the end of the world, you know.”
It may not be the Apocalypse, but the enactment of McCain-Feingold signals the death of an already bruised and battered 1st Amendment. And the destruction of the First Amendment means an apocalypse for democracy.
American Democracy, R.I.P.
Jim Babka is President of the American Liberty Foundation and RealCampaignReform.org, Inc.
I fail to understand how campaign contributions or advocacy ads to assist the election of a candidate are petitioning the government. I petition the government through a call,letter or personal meeting witht he person or person whom I wish to address. My access should not be limited or enhanced by the zeros after the check I just wrote to assist that particular person. That's the perversion of the process.
You are petitioning it by trying to change the political composition of the government.
Anyway, not only do the people have the Right to "petition" their government, they have the right to "alter or abolish" it.
And this bill infringes on both their Right to petition it, and alter it.
I petition the government through a call,letter or personal meeting witht he person or person whom I wish to address.
Wow. You mean you can call Senator Joe Smith, and have him return your call? Must be nice.
For us lowly peasants, one of the few ways we can affect political change is to run ads against or in favor of candidates. And this bill infringes upon our Right to do so.
My access should not be limited or enhanced by the zeros after the check I just wrote to assist that particular person
LOL! And you think this was about fixing that? Bush is breaking records raising money, and Dean has raised so much already that he has chosen to not receive federal matching funds.
This bill had nothing to do with limiting access by the "rich and powerful" and everything to do with protecting incumbent politicians, and those politicians in favor with the media.
That's the perversion of the process.
Actually, the "perversion" is the fact that our politicians can't go a day without taking a piss on the Constitution.
For millions of Americans, the only way they were able to affect political change was to donate to issue-advocacy groups, so that they can run ads before an election. Under federal law, that is now illegal.
Actually, the "perversion" is the fact that our politicians can't go a day without taking a piss on the Constitution. You see, all that $$$ allowed them to do so and whatever you were funneling through whatever groups had no effect. It just went to fund their pissing efforts.
Ken Starr was recently in my town lamenting the fact that CFR had passed. He was one of the leads to the supremes on turning it down. Guess who to. Nationwide Insurance. Want to know where there's seatbelt law? Nationwide. Helmet laws. Nationwide. Mandatory air bags. Nationwide. (Nationwide is one of many in the insurance industry who are horrified CFR passed. And you thought it was only the big guys that benefited. CFR
For millions of Americans, the only way they were able to affect political change was to donate to issue-advocacy groups, so that they can run ads before an election. Under federal law, that is now illegal.
Your way also allows Jesse Jackson to be funded as well as tons of groups like his.
I don't know what the answer is. And CFR as passed WAS an abortion. True CFR would level the playing field.
And after CFR, they have even more money.
As to having "no effect", the NRA has had a huge effect on many elections in this country. Even Bill Clinton admitted this after the 94 elections. Now, it's illegal for them to run ads 60 days before an election.
Ken Starr was recently in my town lamenting the fact that CFR had passed. He was one of the leads to the supremes on turning it down.
My impression of Starr is that he's a paid whore and would support whatever side paid him the most, or offered the most prestige.
Guess who to. Nationwide Insurance. Want to know where there's seatbelt law? Nationwide. Helmet laws. Nationwide. Mandatory air bags. Nationwide. (Nationwide is one of many in the insurance industry who are horrified CFR passed.
So because Congress doesn't follow the Constitution to start with by turning down this nonsense, we need more laws that infringe on the Constitution?
And you thought it was only the big guys that benefited
After CFR, we've had the biggest expansion of the federal government since the days of LBJ. The "big guys" have done pretty well.
I'm not arguing that CFR caused this to happen, it just makes it more difficult to unseat those politicians who made it happen.
Your way also allows Jesse Jackson to be funded as well as tons of groups like his.
A lot of what Jackson did prior-CFR was illegal (raising money in churches, etc....). What makes you think the feds are going to crack down on him now?
Course I am a dreamer.. the reality probably is.. they will continue with the fantasy... the alternative is big bloody mess... and that paticular group are abject cowards and actually doing anything about this rogue democracy will be called a tin foil conspiracy as they patronize you with cowardly facades of semantics...
I've been posting that message since I arrived on FR some 4 years ago.
Mostly, I'm considered a loony for expressing my opinion that there is only one club in Washington. It's called the Gravy Train Club and it doesn't matter if you have a 'D' or an 'R' after your name...the membership card looks the same.
Your question proves that I failed to get the basic point across, please allow me to explain.
My point is this: America is run by a very small elite that in fact controls both Parties at the top. This tiny elite "markets" policies to carefully defined issue/opinion segments, and then plays one off against the other in pursuit of their broad policy objectives - objectives that ultimately very few in the core constituencies of either party share. This tiny elite is our enemy.
Thus, we shouldn't vote for the Republicans because to do so is to do precisely what the enemy wants us to do. Voting Republican and working for Republican candidates because we fear an illusory "alterantive" - an illusion carefully cultivated by our enemies - is to dance to the very tune our enemies call for us.
The choice you suggest is pure illusion. The elites invented a matching pair of Tweelde Dee and Tweedle Dum strawmen. The same people pull the strings of both of puppets.
The Democrats are the gas, the Republicans are brakes, but the trick is to see that they're both integral parts of the same machine. They first let the Democrats' Tweedle Dee push toward our disenfranchisement and impoverishment, and then when that seems to be leading to a dangerous reaction, they let the Republican Tweedle Dum take over for a while and lull the sheeple back to quiesence. It's very effective.
The first step is to REALIZE THAT and to quit playing into the hands of our enemies.
And they are our enemies. They are sponsoring a silent invasion of our sovereign territory in the hopes of depressing our wages and creating so much Yugoslavia-style social upheaval on the local level that we'll all be too busy to stop their march to totalitarian power.
STOP SUPPORTING THE REPUBLICANS.
They are the enemy. The first step is to quit the suckers' game that they've laid out for us.
Once we've agreed to that, we can talk about realistic alternatives. As you can probably guess, I believe the alternatives are already very stark, but that's another conversation.
All the best.
Heartbreak
The GOP was taken over by Trotskyites sometime in the 1980's. They're called popularly the "Neo-Conservatives", but this is transparent nonsense - there's nothing "conservative" about their unrepentant Marxism.
David Horowitz was a Communist, and of course he still is. Check out his webpage, and all the nice things he and his Kommisar Komrades say about their spiritual grandfather Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronshtein), and the praise they heap on communist fellow travellers like Morris Dees at the racist SPLC. Or if that doesn't convince you then how about their promotion of the homosexual agenda advanced by great "conservative" voices like Tammy Bruce? Who are the Log Cabin Republicans? The list could go on.
The truly amazing thing is that traditional conservatives were gullible enough to believe their sob story about how they were just misguided red diaper babies, and how even though they worked hard for Ho Chi Mihn's victory while our boys were fighting and dying in Vietnam (note that not many of their boys were, since they mostly qualified for college deferrals) they've now seen the light and really belong in the Party of Lincoln.
Except of course that they think that Tammy Bruce has important things to say about the education of your daughters, and that SPLC's program to discrimate against whites is actually okay, and open borders aren't so bad, and yada yada yada.
I can only stand in slack-jawed awe at the gullibility of us white folks. I swear. Who could be that bloody stupid to believe them?
I mean really, what can you say to any group of people that is that bloody stupid? I hate to come off as too harsh, but you really have to have an IQ of 92 and just fallen off a turnip truck from Podunk to believe such a transparent lie that these Communists who still openly revere Leon Trotsky (Broshtein) are just regular apple pie Midwestern Americans who stand up for traditional Christian values.
Right.
So, there you have it. What happened to your GOP? It was taken over by Trotskyites named Horowitz, Radesh, Wolfowitz, Perle, Krauthammer, and Kristol. With a couple of guys named Bush, Cheney and Will thrown in for a bit of flavour.
Are we clear on this point?
I left the GOP around the time Bill Buckley sold out and let those slime balls in, cutting true conservatives like Joe Sobran and Pat Buchanan off at the knees in the process. Now we have Andrew Sullivan promoting sodomite "marriage" in their place. Isn't that just precious?
We have yet to fully comprehend the depths of WFB's treason. There's a nice, warm place in hell waiting for him, IMHO.
DOES EVERYBODY HAVE THIS NOW?
Sorry for shouting.
Heartbreak
If you please, I'm stealing this for my new tagline.
Well, that is indeed. How many are willing to hear it? Like I told a previous person, were Hancock, Madison and Jefferson alive today, they would be publicly executing career politicians in the streets of DC.
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.