Bill Would Reduce Anti-Free Speech-Campaign Finance Reform Thread

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Campaign reform legislation that prohibits organizations other than political action committees from mentioning candidates in advertising before primaries and elections has stifled pro-life groups. That's why pro-life Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) has introduced a bill that would restore the First Amendment Rights of the excluded organizations.

Currently, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 includes a provision that prohibits non-PAC-funded issue advocacy and references to candidates in broadcast advertisements 30 days prior to primaries and 60 days prior to general elections.

That means pro-life groups that are not political action committees couldn't run advertising asking people to contact Congress to support specific legislation if the ad mentions a Congressman who is a candidate. Nor would ads thanking elected officials for their votes for pro-life bills be allowed.

"I am firmly committed to protecting our Constitution," said Rep. Bartlett. "As stated in the First Amendment to the Constitution; 'Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech'. It is clearly a violation of the First Amendment to restrict organized group communications (including informational and issue advocacy radio or TV broadcast communications) and limit what people can say about a candidate and when they may choose to speak out.

"Federal government restrictions of Americans' access to information about political candidates would be anathema to our Nation's founders and eviscerates the central purpose of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech -- the protection of political speech," added Rep. Bartlett. "This is a right and a privilege extended to all Americans that must be preserved and protected."

Similar state laws have muzzled pro-life groups, such as Arizona Right to Life, which filed a lawsuit in an attempt to remove a state law provision prohibiting them from running ads 16 weeks prior to a general election unless the organizations are registered with the Secretary of State's Office and file campaign finance reports.

"Arizona Right to Life is not a political action committee and should not be forced to register as a political action committee," James Bopp, whose Indiana-based law firm represented Arizona Right to Life said. "Arizona Right to Life has the right under the First Amendment to talk about what politicians are doing, the positions they've adopted, and this, of course, prohibits any of that."

Despite the fact that a judge dismissed the suit because in his opinion Arizona Right to Life would not be affected by the statute, Arizona Right to Life feared it might be interpreted differently when the group tried to educate voters.

"The mere fact that the law is on the books overwhelmingly quells our right to free speech," Shane Wikfors, Executive Director of Arizona Right to Life told LifeNews.com. "We are left with no way to inform voters on critical right to life issues."

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

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again - the CONGRESS has exceeded it's authority here (and elsewhere, but thats another thread . . .). "CONGRESS shall pass no law ..." is a specific prohibition! Any law passed by the CONGRESS which in any way restricts the freedom of speech is prima facia unconstitutional and should be ignored. Let them try to pull you before a judge - even the most liberal one can not deny that the law passed in clearly unconstitutional.

While encouraging that a Representative is attempting to "soften" the law - it is discouraging that NO ONE has attempted to challenge it!

This laughable campaign finance "reform" just goes to show that Democrats aren't really in favor of free speech.

Now I'm a conserative republican and something of a BushBot, BUT before we start feeling all pious about this lets remember there were a large number of people with an R after their name who voted for this abortion of a law.

It has a lot to do with politicians getting "cute" and thinking they can get some short-term gain out of this.

This IS an election year, and your representative/senator IS going to be coming around and asking for your support/vote. Grill them on this, did they vote for it? WHY? Did they vote against it? Thank them, and ask them what are you doing to get rid of it.

The only way we are going to get rid of this is to make the boys and girls from DC understand that we are NOT happy campers.

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.