HOORAY For John!
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 Update
I've already tested the idea of my in-your-face challenge ads, first in the print media and then deliberately illegal on TV, with certain editors I have a long relationship with. I could trust these two gentlemen, one in the print media and the other in the broadcast media, with a "heads up" on what I am planning. Both said they wanted to know, in advance, when I am about to do this.
The bottom line is clear. If I am willing to put my neck on the line, with the possibilities of a fine and jail time, THAT effort will put CFR back on the front page in all media. And that is part of the point. There's not much value of going in-your-face against the enemies of the First Amendment unless the press takes up the story and spreads the word. It is now clear they will do exactly that.
Update 2
QUICK PROGRESS REPORT, ANSWERING A SUPPORTER'S QUESTION:
We have about 15% of the needed 1,000 sign-ups.
Spread the word, direct folks to the front page link on my website.
Google-bomb the phrase "anti-CFR" directing readers to that page and link. (We're already #2 and #4 on Google.)
Target date is now August, since the NC primary looks to be put back to September. (Remember, the ad isn't illegal until the 29th day before the election.)
Cordially,
John / Billybob
Note if you are interested in more on this please contact myself or Congressman Billybob
This is a good article. The burden of proof is on the Republican Party leadership as to whether Constitutional fidelity is more important to them than political power grabs.
"Too many Republicans and conservatives were seduced into voting for McCain-Feingold by the political benefits of banning soft money."
First clue to when we need to take arms against prospective legislation - when politicians CLAIM that they want to LIMIT their access to a source of campaign funds. There is no politician alive that wants to limit access to a source of campaign funding.
But, the issue goes well beyond just the superficial funding issue. If we are truly going to resolve the unConstitutional aspects of CFR AND resolve the issue of campaign finance reform, I believe that the answer lies in limiting Crogressional sessions; NOT Congressional terms. If we limit Congressional sessions to one 6 month term once every other year, we can do much to take the influence of money out of politics. After the 6 month Congressional session ends, the politicians go home to a regular job. I think this will go a long way to curb many of the ills currently affecting our political system and our system of government. When Congress is in session, it is like giving children the keys to the candy store. If we limit the length of Congressional sessions, we limit the damage these people can do.
Exactly.
Consequently, the struggle for public opinion on this issue was one-sided.
Way to many people just don't see how this directly affects their lives.