A Stake Through The Heart Of Free Speech -Daily Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 26

The Chattanoogan ^ | 12/20/03 | Mike North

[Valin]

Yesterdays Thread
Through the looking glass
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1051286/posts?page=9#9

If you would like to be on or off the Campaign Finance Reform Thread please let me know.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
5	Maryland	565.00	10	56.50	334	1.69	293.00	14

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[jocon307]

"In an unusual move, the court left a door open to reconsider their decision should someone come forward with a “showing of harm.” That should happen, I predict, about November of 2004."

This I hadn't heard before. I'm glad there is this glimmer of hope, because I truly believe this decision is one of the most, if not THE most, atrocious ever made by the SCOTUS.

Thanks for posting this article.

[Valin]

Remember better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

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

[putupon]

Why do they go to the trouble to write new laws, when all they need is an eraser?

[The_Eaglet]

This article does an excellent job of presenting the issue and how it violates First Amendment rights.

[The_Eaglet]

This I hadn't heard before. I'm glad there is this glimmer of hope, because I truly believe this decision is one of the most, if not THE most, atrocious ever made by the SCOTUS.

The bill itself is an atrocity due to its infringements on First Amendment rights.

[Valin]

I always thought putting a limit on the # of laws/reg./decrees, ordinances, rules, statutes.
Let them have (say)10,000, if they wqant/need one more they have to get rid of one.

[King Black Robe]

Bump!

Hey, there's a great article on subject at Townhall.com. A link is posted at the top of their homepage right now.

[Valin]

This?
Censorship across the divide: 'Epithet' that!
Diana West
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dianawest/dw20040105.shtml

[King Black Robe]

No, this

[MosesKnows]

In every congressional session Rep. Shadegg (R) AZ proposes the Enumerated Powers Act.

Who believes that proposed legislation (H.R. 384) actually exist which would require our elected representatives to follow the Constitution?

That would indicate to the most casual of observers just how corrupted the 16th and 17th amendment allowed the nation to become.

[DustyMoment]

Great article that clearly identifies the problems with CFR.

I have long felt that we don't need Congress in session 10 months out of the year. With so much of other people's money available to them to re-distribute to others and no clear agenda that they must accomplish each session, the publicity they are under pushes them to create problems that didn't exist before.

I don't think we need Congressional term limits, they haven't solved any problems where they have been implemented. What we need are Congressional SESSION limits. When I lived in Texas, I loved the way that the Texas Legislature held its sessions. They went into session for 6 months once every two years and their most important job was to pass a state budget. With 6 months to screw around with, they created lots of other mischief and, often, would not pass the budget so that the Gov. would have to call them back into special session (at taxpayer expense).

I think we need a Congress in session for 6 months once every 2 years to pass a budget and other NECESSARY legislation (yeah, I know, "necessary" is open to interpretation, but we can refine it in the details). The rest of the time they should have to go home and live in the mess they have made. With today's communications systems, they don't need to be in Wash. at all. They can obtain secure Internet and videoconferencing services that allow them to stay home, do less gladhanding, create fewer unnecessary and redundant laws and let the country take care of its own business. If we need to have a special session, the option is available to the President to call one, BUT . . . he only gets to call 2 special sessions of 30 days each per fiscal year. If he wants/needs more, he needs to declare a state of emergency.

I also like the idea of limiting the Congress to the total number of laws on the books. If 10,000 is the limit and they want to add three more, they have to eliminate three from those currently in force. As long as they face no limits, no restraints, restrictions or consequences, they will act like . . . the Congress we currently have.

[GailA]

btt

[King Black Robe]

I liked this one a lot the FIRST time I read it as well. LOL! For some reason I didn't remember it was the same article. You know, new location and all. LOL!

[goldstategop]

I won't voluntarily obey the SCOTUS decision. My response is the same as Andrew Jackson's to Justice Marshall about a certain decision that flouted the Constitution: "now let the court try to enforce it."

[King Black Robe]

Okay I'm confused. Is there a list of all your posted articles? It's rough going back through my posts to find them.