McCain-Feingold Unmade?-Daily Campaign Finance Reform Thread

Today, Bradley A. Smith takes the gavel of the Federal Election Commission under pressure from an exceptional array of conflicting forces as the regulatory agency addresses the first major issue in the enforcement of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law .

For Chairman Smith, almost all campaign finance regulation is wrongheaded, does the opposite of what it claims and routinely infringes on the right to free speech. Intellectual convictions, partisan interests and a Supreme Court decision are all pounding this former law professor, and he is getting a little testy.

"I'm not going to get sucked into this 'Will you enforce the law?' stuff," he replied to a question about how he will deal with one of the biggest issues to face the FEC. "I just don't want to answer it."

The issue is whether the new law, and the Dec. 10 Supreme Court decision backing it up, requires the FEC to impose stringent restrictions on the latest and most fashionable vehicle to get around the ban on "soft money": groups called "527s," for a section of the tax code.

In 1996, Smith wrote in the 1996 Yale Law Journal that campaign finance regulation is "undemocratic."

"Reform efforts are based on faulty assumptions and are, in fact, irretrievably flawed," he continued. "Reform proposals inherently favor certain political elites, support the status quo, and discourage grass-roots political activity."

And in a dramatic turnabout from opposition to most campaign finance regulation, Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee, ordered his counsel to call "upon the FEC to faithfully enforce provisions" of the new law to prevent the use of soft money "to support or oppose a federal candidate."

Smith said this turnaround does not surprise him. "Nothing much in Washington surprises me," he said. "I don't think it is a surprise that one interpretation or another is perceived to have a partisan advantage.

"One of the problems with campaign finance laws is that they are not nonpartisan, good government," Smith said. "They are tools, partisan weapons to be used to attack the political power on the other side, and we should expect it to happen."

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 Valin or Congressman Billybob

PPS If you are interested in posting some of these threads please let me know.

Thank you for posting these writings by the new Chairman of the FEC. My last ditch defense, AFTER I have run the TV ad violating the CFR, is this: I will remind the Members of the Commission that they, too, are federal officers who have taken an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. They, too, have the opportunity to reach their OWN conclusions about the constitutionality of this law.

With that said, the FEC is composed of six Members, each of them appointed for partisan participation, either as Democrats or Republicans. The Chairman is chosen from among those six on a rotating basis for a one-year term. The Chairman of the FEC, unlike Chairmen of most federal agencies, has no special power.

The last wrinkle is this: the FEC cannot go to federal court to enforce any alleged violation of its laws without the affirmative vote of FOUR of its Members. With three or fewer votes to find that there was a violation, the FEC does nothing.

The FEC has a long history of stepping on anyone in politics who rocks the boat. So I will act on the assumption it will find me in violation of the law. But the comments you just posted give me faint hope of a more constitutional result. LOL.

John / Billybob

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.