Groups unfairly targeted-Campaign Finance Reform Thread - Day 62(whine alert)

Yahoo News / USA Today ^ | 2/10/04 | Steve Rosenthal

[Valin]

Imagine an organization established by people who are concerned about the direction of their country and seek to change it. They are not politicians or political party officials. They are activists on issues such as fairness to working families, women's rights and the environment. Their aim is to encourage their fellow citizens to register and vote for change in this November's elections - and to shake up the dismal reality of one-third of adults being unregistered and half of all adults not voting.

This classic case of American democratic action is America Coming Together, or ACT. Yet an attempt is underway to portray ACT - and other "Section 527" groups, named for the part of the Internal Revenue Code under which they are formed - as engaged in improper fundraising practices. This tactic confuses ACT with political parties and candidates subject to the new legal restrictions designed to end their solicitations and receipt of large contributions. But ACT is not a political party; it operates completely independently of both parties and candidates.

In the new McCain-Feingold law and a prior "527" disclosure law, Congress explicitly respected the rights of citizens, unions and businesses to engage in such independent activities, subject to full disclosure. In upholding the McCain-Feingold law last month, the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) emphasized that "interest groups remain free to raise soft money" to fund voter registration, get-out-the-vote activities and mailings. ACT regularly reports its contributions and spending to the Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) and Internal Revenue Service (news - web sites).

Now, however, the Republican National Committee (news - web sites) and some of its allies opportunistically are challenging ACT's existence in order to eliminate perceived political opponents. Regrettably, they are aided by professional "reform" groups, always eager for government controls on others' speech.

Together, they demand that the FEC trump Congress and rewrite the new law in the middle of an election. But true progressives and conservatives should reject partisanship and unfairness and defend the principle and practice of free political asso ciation that embraces whatever conviction or cause. Americans always have organized together to realize their aspirations. This is what ACT and others are doing in the finest American political tradition.

Steve Rosenthal is chief executive of America Coming Together.

[Valin]

I normally don't post blatantly patrician articials..but this is just too good to pass up.

It begs the question, just how many of these folks supported Mc Cain/Feingold in the first place?

[Valin]

Yesterdays thread
Political Nonprofits Rake in Donations
U.S. Newswire 2/9/04
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1075177/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 your tan.

[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

[Jerry Attrick]

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...it's a duck.....or in this case...a jackass.

[King Black Robe]

Ahahahaha! I love it Valin. Those hypocrites never cease to amaze me. They need to read their own law.

[Valin]

They need to read their own law.

Now why would they do that? We all know these kinds of laws don't apply to them.

[Valin]

Then it's time to get your shotgun out.
See reply #3.

[The_Eaglet]

I agree with the concept of open disclosure, but I disagree with 60 day limit on advertising because it violates the First Amendment.

The so-called Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform act needs to be repealed.

[libstripper]

It surely does. The best way to get it repealed is to enforce it against DemonRat groups like ACT. Once they start to howl, it will be gone. If you don't believe that, take a look at what happened to the Special Counsel law. As soon as it started to burn the Skink Emperor, poof!, the DemonRats who earlier believed in it like Holy Scripture killed it.

[The_Eaglet]

I would like to see it repealed before the window takes effect. Whether it's conservative groups like Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, or the American Life League or liberal groups like Planned Parenthood, ACT, or the ACLU, all should be free from congressional abridgement of their freedom of speech.

[sharkhawk]

Has anyone gone after Move on for their Super Bowl ad? The way I read the law (and I am not a lawyer) anyone who produces an ad that mentions a candidate in a federal election using "soft" money, within 30 days of a primary, or 60 days of a federal election can be subjected to criminal penalties. Well I didn't think much about this since President Bush isn't in a contested primary, but that week I read a story about how some schmuck in Oklahoma had received some 9 or 10% of the Republican primary vote. How is this not a violation of the law? Did CNN not show it in Oklahoma? I say go after them.

[KantianBurke]

think you might enjoy the logic that's employed in this thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1075902/posts

[Valin]

Has anyone gone after Move on for their Super Bowl ad? The way I read the law (and I am not a lawyer) anyone who produces an ad that mentions a candidate in a federal election using "soft" money, within 30 days of a primary, or 60 days of a federal election can be subjected to criminal penalties.

I don't know. You might want to send your question to the
Southeastern Legal Foundation
http://southeasternlegal.org/
I believe they are filing some suits on this.

John, you anything about this?

[Congressman Billybob]

The Move.on ad would be a violation of CFR if President Bush were a declared candidate (he isn't), and if it was less than 30 days before a primary (it isn't, there aren't any primaries for President, only for delegates to conventions.

Nice try. Logical idea. But that dog won't hunt.

John / Billybob