The perils of legislating in the dark-Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 50

Townhall ^ | 2/21/03 | Jacob Sullum

[Valin]

The New York Times reports that Robert Matsui was "surprised by (the) fine print" in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Matsui, the California representative who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, confesses, "I didn't realize what all was in it."
Well, how could he have known? It's a complicated piece of legislation. You didn't expect him to actually read the bill prior to voting for it, did you?
Anyway, 60 senators and 240 representatives voted for McCain-Feingold, a.k.a. Shays-Meehan, a.k.a. the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Surely at least some of them knew what all was in it.

Maybe not. In a story that is simultaneously hilarious and appalling, the Times describes how members of Congress are only now discovering, to their dismay, the requirements of the campaign finance restrictions they enacted almost a year ago.
"We sometimes leave our audiences in a state of complete shock," says a lawyer who teaches the intricacies of McCain-Feingold to Democratic legislators. His seminars elicit "a sort of slack-jawed amazement at how far this thing reached."
A lawyer who runs similar sessions for Republicans says, "There's an initial stage where the reaction is, 'This can't be true.' And then there's the actual anger stage."

That's a pretty good description of the average American's reaction upon learning that his elected representatives can't be troubled to familiarize themselves with the laws they pass. Instead they vote for a general idea, leaving the details to be worked out by administrative agencies and the courts. What they produce is not really law, in the sense of rules that people can reasonably be expected to understand and follow.

Consider the tax code. How do you feel knowing that if you pose the same tax question to five experts, you're liable to get five different answers? The state of the law is such that not even the most honest and diligent filer can face an audit with confidence.
If you own or run a business, you have to guess at the meaning of such nebulous concepts as "reasonable accommodation" for the disabled and "hostile environments" that may constitute illegal sex discrimination. If you're a developer, you need to keep up with the ever-changing definition of "wetland."
If you're an investor, you need to understand which conversations can subject you to "insider trading" charges.

It's only fair that members of Congress are now experiencing some of the fear and uncertainty they routinely impose on the rest of us. The Times reports that "members of both parties have been startled" to learn that McCain-Feingold violations are felonies carrying penalties of up to five years in prison.
"My message," says Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, "is, 'Don't be the first guy to find out if you go to jail.' " Matsui reports, "We have cautioned members: 'You have to really understand this law. And if you have any ambiguity, err on the side of caution.' "

Under McCain-Feingold, it turns out, actions that seem trivial and innocent -- speaking at a fund-raising event, attending a conference, letting your name appear on an invitation -- can be construed as felonies. Who knew? Unfortunately, that is not a rhetorical question.
Another aspect of the law that its supporters did not notice until recently is a requirement that candidates appear at the end of their attack ads to take responsibility for them.
"I think it was a total surprise to people who don't read C.Q. with a yellow pen," says a Democratic media consultant. Apparently, it is unreasonable to expect members of Congress to read a publication as far afield from their concerns as Congressional Quarterly.

It is richly satisfying to see the anxiety that McCain-Feingold's backers have created among themselves. But we should not lose sight of the fact that the law affects a lot of other people, including the political activists whose speech it squelches.
Some of the law's supporters, including President Bush, recognized that it was unconstitutional but figured the Supreme Court would sort things out.
Something similar happened with the anti-terrorism legislation approved after the September 11 attacks, the final text of which was not even available to be read by those legislators who might have been inclined to do so.

In such cases, I'm not sure which is a worse abdication of responsibility: voting for a law without knowing what's in it, or knowing and voting for it anyway.

[Valin]

Some of the law's supporters, including President Bush, recognized that it was unconstitutional but figured the Supreme Court would sort things out.

WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!
This is what happens when politicians think they're sooo smart.

[Valin]

Yesterdays thread
Clarity Needed on Campaign Law
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1067519/posts



Note: If you would like to be on/off this Campaign Finance Reform list please let me know

[Valin]

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

PPS I am looking for others to do some of these. In order to bring different prospectives to this subject

[Valin]

Ping

[4CJ]

PPS I am looking for others to do some of these. In order to bring different prospectives to this subject

Why? You're spot on every time. ;o)

[4CJ]

Can we use our tagline to Google-bomb John's site Click here if you're anti-CFR

[Arthur McGowan]

"Law" that is never promulgated--i.e., is never made known to the public--is not really law, and is not binding on the conscience. A law that is so complex that it is by its very nature incomprehensible is IN PRINCIPLE incapable of being promulgated. Thus, it is by its very nature not binding on the conscience. It should be obeyed, and will be obeyed, only out of fear of the police.

[DustyMoment]

"Matsui, the California representative who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, confesses, "I didn't realize what all was in it."

This is so disingenuous. He knew; they ALL knew. There isn't a politician alive that will vote for a bill purporting to limit their access to campaign funds without thoroughly understanding every single word in it.

They are all still playing "pass-the-buck" politics to avoid accepting responsibility for angering voters by passing a VERY VERY BAD LAW. This is the same ploy they use to give themselves a pay raise and then tell us they didn't vote for it. Well, sure, they didn't. Years ago, Congress passed a nifty little rule that allows them to get away with this. Here's how it works: if a bill sits on the docket with NO action taken on it for 72 hours (not sent to committee or called for a floor vote) it is considered automatically passed and sent to the President for his signature.

Does anyone actually believe that the Congress doesn't know what Bill has their pay raise in it? Does anyone actually believe that these thieves didn't know what was in CFR (McCain-Feingold)? They knew; ALL of them. Remember, these people lie for a living.

[Valin]

Reason #739 why this "law" is a bad idea.

Do something. See reply #6

[jimkress]

Bump!

[Valin]

Why? In order to bring different prospectives to this subject.
And I'm thinking others might do a better job of promoting this.

[The_Eaglet]

Do something

We need to pressure Congress to repeal the political speech rules because they violate the First Amendment, and we need to do this before the 60-day window kicks in.

Please contact your representative about this issue.

[Valin]

Please contact your representative about this issue.


WOW! What a great idea.
/wisenheimer

:-)

[Conspiracy Guy]

I already have and thanks for the ping.

CG

[The_Eaglet]

You're welcome, and thank you for raising this issue.

[Gen. Longstreet]

they ALL knew. There isn't a politician alive that will vote for a bill purporting to limit their access to campaign funds without thoroughly understanding every single word in it.

Actually, I really think they didn't know. I've seen them; talked to some. They thought they knew. They knew it would limit ads critical of them. They were told - by the bill's sponsors, McCain Feingold et al. -- that the bill would keep groups like the Club for Growth and the NRA from spending big bucks in "their" campaigns. They were told that it would penalize millionaires who would run against them. But they really weren't told - and didn't read - about how it would limit their own activity.

Our government is too damn big, and members of Congress can't begin to understand, let alone read, all that they vote on. What happens is that on any issue, a small number who are particularly interested really become experts, and the others defer to them. So you're a congressman, and a bill comes up on, say, regulating phone companies. You go to the congressman who thinks like you on most things who has learned this bill, and he tells you how to vote. Then a bill comes up on say, bankruptcy, and you're the bankruptcy expert. The other guy comes to you.

Campaign finance is really boring. Their eyes glaze over. They just trusted McCain and Feingold and Shays and Meehan. But you see, here the system broke down - because Feingold is a true zealot, and the other three - especially McCain - really didn't understand their own bill. My guess is that McCain, Shays, and Meehan have never read the bill. They sure as heck didn't write it - it was written by lobbyists for Common Cause. So members went to these guys, and these guys themselves didn't really understand it. And now they've screwed themselves and us.

[DustyMoment]

Thanks for your thoughtful response, General. While I am still doubtful, I am trying to be open minded enough to honestly consider your comments. Of course, a lot of it is that I am still so angry about how our entire government system broke down and let us down.

When government reaches the size that this one has, IMO it is time to limit Congressional sessions. When Congress is in session 10 months out of every year, it only leads to mischief - and lousy legislation. I believe that they feel obligated to do something - anything - that gives the appearance of justifying their jobs. If Congress is limited to one 6 month session every other year, it will do wonders to curb spending, mischief, lousy legislation, and the size of government. Realistically, how many laws do we, the "freest nation on earth" need? Over 20,000 gun laws are on the books and gun-related crimes are still committed every day.

In addition, I am not convinced that Congress needs to gather in Washington, D.C. With the communications systems we have available today, our elected reprersentatives can stay at home and phone their work in. We need to have elected representatives who are grounded in the real world, NOT the fantasy world of Washington. Right now, we need lawmakers with the courage and backbone to repeal CFR in its entirety to fix the current situation. I don't want to see amendments, I want to see it completely repealed.

[The_Eaglet]

Forward Link:

Soft Money and the Presidental Campaign System-Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 51

[silversky]

Robert Matsui was "surprised by (the) fine print" in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

I must admit the same thing. This law has to go. Now it's final.

[Valin]

Then let your Representative know! He/She wants your support/vote, this gives you leverage..use it!

And if I may suggest.
Congressman Billybob
If You Think Campaign Finance "Reform" Offends the First Amendment, Join This Effort
http://www.armorforcongress.com/index.php?submit=cfrad