CAMPAIGN "REFORM" AN UNFAIR GAG ORDER-Campaign Finance Reform Thread - Day 58

Southeastern Legal Foundation ^ | 9/14/03 | Valle Simms Dutcher

[Valin]

Make no mistake --- the purpose of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act is to silence voices of political expression.

The all-out assault by so-called reformers promises treatment for the symptoms of electoral abuses at the expense of the First Amendment.

The provisions of the act challenged by more than 80 plaintiffs in a current lawsuit do nothing to address the perceived Clinton-era campaign scandals. In fact, those transgressions were illegal under existing federal law and regulation.

Rather, what lawmakers --- all sitting incumbents --- have imposed is a deafening silence at the time the U.S. Constitution encourages the most robust public debate: election time.

Provisions in the law banning unions and organizations from running issue advocacy ads 60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary are blatant censorship of free speech.

As the venerable Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote decades ago, "[The Founding Fathers] believed that freedom to think as you will and speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth . . . the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

The act's "enforced silence" comes with a high price tag for those Americans who violate it. Consider that an organization running a TV ad in an "illegal time and place" may be subject to years of prison time and $500,000 in fines.

That's the ugly reality of the act, and one of the reasons its critics have called the law "the incumbency protection act." After all, a guilty party is one who runs an ad naming an elected official, period.

The cry for campaign finance reform, arising from decades of fund-raising abuses and perceived special interest influence on lawmakers, is a legitimate one. However, why should Congress force Americans to sacrifice the ability to speak on political issues rather than punish corrupt politicians?

The problem is that McCain-Feingold supporters have yet to define or demonstrate in any compelling or scientific way that money in politics equals corruption. Reports submitted by the defendants are anecdotal at best, preying on the public perception that money corrupts politics.

The point missed in McCain-Feingold is that money cannot be corrupt politicians can. Shouldn't campaign reform laws address that single question, rather than strike at the heart of the right of individual Americans to speak out with a political voice?

What is unacceptable is any effort to stifle vigorous, public political debate --- described by congressional legal analysts reviewing the McCain-Feingold bill as a perception by lawmakers that "the First Amendment is a loophole that must be closed."

Instead of truly addressing the "money and politics" issue, McCain-Feingold extends a federal chokehold of regulations on independent speech by organizations and corporations. That's precisely why groups as diverse as the American Civil Liberties Union, the AFL-CIO, the National Rifle Association and Southeastern Legal Foundation have joined to challenge this law.

The issues now rest with the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices, who will, let's hope, find one voice in their review of the confusing new law and strike the blatantly unconstitutional provisions that damage free speech.

Valle Simms Dutcher is general counsel of the Southeastern Legal Foundation in Atlanta.

[Valin]

Yesterdays Thread
What's Next for Campaign Finance
CATO Institute 4/6/04
John Samples
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1072749/posts


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

If you are interested in posting some of these threads please let me know
It's fun, it's easy, it build strong bodies 12 way, it gets rid of those "unsightly" stains, And is guaranteed to improve you gas mileage.

[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 Valin or Congressman Billybob

[Sunshine Sister]

I'm confused. The supreme court did the exact opposite of what the last paragraph of this article said. Was this written before the decision?

It is my belief that it is high time to start removing those idiots that can't read the Constitution from the bench. We will start with the supreme court then go to Massachusetts then California.

[Valin]

9/14/03 :-)

It is my belief that it is high time to start removing those idiots that can't read the Constitution from the bench. Br>Not gonna happen...w/o YOU putting the pressure on.

[Vision]

This is a nightmare.

[gaspar]

John McCain, one raging egomaniac, brings forth another: George Soros.

[Valin]

Yes. So take action.
No flame.

[Valin]

This is what happens when the boys and girls in DC try to "fix" something. Money IS going to get into the system, it's just a matter of how.
My solution, Anyone can give however much the want, too whoever they want, whenever they want. BUT it must be reported, and be publicly available.
Radical concept alert

[counterpunch]

[Valin]

ME ME ME!!!
Of course I am dumber than a small pile of rocks.

[Sunshine Sister]

Not me! Not me! I wouldn't buy something written by that two faced nut case!

[The_Eaglet]

bump

[Eastbound]

"After all, a guilty party is one who runs an ad naming an elected official,..."

Well, what if we don't name names? Just make an inference, like:

'That pot-bellied sucker who only wakes up when you wave Essence de-Jack Daniels under his nose and would never qualify as a live-saver at the beach,'

or

'That chic who can't tell the difference between an assault weapon and a bag of marbles,'

or

'That idiot who always looks like a dog which just got kicked out of the house and spent three weeks rummaging through the dump looking for some military momentos he threw away,'

or

That mousey-looking idjit who can sing 'We are the World' backwards and likes to hold hands with himself,

Or . . .

Sorry. Just musing to myself. Feel free to delete.

[DustyMoment]

"This is what happens when the boys and girls in DC try to "fix" something. Money IS going to get into the system, it's just a matter of how.
My solution, Anyone can give however much the want, too whoever they want, whenever they want. BUT it must be reported, and be publicly available.
Radical concept alert"

(showing my age)

RIGHT ON, MY BROTHER!!!!!

[DustyMoment]

I LIKE it!!!

Muse some more!!

[Godebert]

" It is my belief that it is high time to start removing those idiots that can't read the Constitution from the bench. We will start with the supreme court then go to Massachusetts then California."

President Bush signed this un-Constitutional CFR bill into law. You're not calling him an illiterate idiot too, are you?

[Eastbound]

'That refugee from an ancient Greece who passed out clean towels and sheets at the Vomitorium and was sought for questioning in connection with a fracas between his fellow understudies backstage at the local Shakespearean Theatre. Yea, verily, forsooth!'

[Smile-n-Win]

Freedom has always been a radical concept.

:-)

BTTT