Protect political speech-C F R Thread, Day 95

USATODAY / Yahoo News ^ | 3/16/04 | R. Bruce Anderson

[Valin]

Of all of the elements of the First Amendment, the one that should be protected most zealously is the right to free political speech. The additional regulation advocated by USA TODAY would place an undue burden on this right.

These new, independent political committees - which under the law do not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate - are taking to task a political position, not a candidate or candidates. This is the valuable role of issue-advocacy groups. It is hypocritical to whine about the lack of "issue politics" in campaigns while hamstringing their expression in the campaign with a tide of new paperwork.

The most basic problem with additional reporting requirements is that wealthy, influential interest groups and undercover political party operatives only would be slightly inconvenienced by new, tighter rules of disclosure. Their ability to hide behind a multiplicity of fronts is at least equal to their copious resources.

The real burden would fall on those groups that do not have the resources to create these networks or to farm their legal responsibilities out to a cadre of flashy lawyers, accountants and fixers. Those groups struggle to be heard - even under the current rules - because the slightest misstep might result in prosecutions and regulatory harassment that could put them out of the free-speech business permanently.

There is nothing "special" about "interests." In a nation of 292 million people, it is time to admit to ourselves that organized advocacy groups serve a critical function. Whatever their political stamp and resources, they act as policy advocates for important segments of the great unwashed masses. The right of these diverse groups to determine when, where and how they voice their views should not be drowned in a sea of regulatory paper spewed from the Federal Election Commission (news - web sites).

American politics is a free-for-all of rapidly unwinding, often spontaneous, sometimes nasty competition. The stakes are high. Anything that interferes with this process without substantially improving citizens' ability to communicate their views should be viewed with a jaundiced eye.

R. Bruce Anderson is a professor of political science at Tennessee's Sewanee: The University of the South. He approved this message.

[Valin]

Yesterdays Thread
Democrats fall off campaign finance reform wagon
St. Petersburg Times. 3/14/04 PHILIP GAILEY
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1097956/posts



If you want on/off this Campaign Finance Reform list please let me know.

If you are interested in posting some of these threads please let me know.
Fame Fortune could be yours.
If you don't Helen Thomas will move in with you!
And follow you everywhere you go.
And tell everyone you're her lovebunny!

[Valin]

First Amendment Restoration Act
Bill # H.R.3801

Original Sponsor:
Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD 6th)

Cosponsor Total: 35
(last sponsor added 03/11/2004)
2 Democrats
33 Republicans

About This Legislation:
Washington, D.C. is often referred to as "Inside the Beltway" or "Belly of the Beast." A more appropriate reference, however, is "The Twilight Zone."

In 1961, there was an episode of "The Twilight Zone" titled "The Obsolete Man." In that episode, the government finds a librarian to be obsolete and sentences him to liquidation.

Has that eerie bit of 1961 fiction become a chilling reality today?
Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court have, with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold), found political speech by average American citizens to be...obsolete. What will government mandate next...liquidation?

On February 11, 2004, Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, along with several other members of The Liberty Caucus, introduced the "First Amendment Restoration Act" (H.R. 3801). This legislation would restore Americans' First Amendment rights by repealing sections of the McCain-Feingold law that forbid issue-advocacy groups, such as The Liberty Committee, Gun Owners of America, American Conservative Union, Concerned Women of America and the National Rifle Association, to inform their members about important issues and votes relative to incumbent candidates during the 30 and 60 days before primary and general elections.

So during that 30-60 day period when the U.S. Congress takes a vote on abortion, immigration, gun control, United Nations, taxes, treaties, etc., we won't be able to tell you about it without committing a federal crime and risking jail time! Even a simple E-mail alert will violate the law!

McCain-Feingold, passed by Congress, signed by President Bush, and affirmed by the Supreme Court, muzzles the average American who doesn't have a high-priced lobbyist to represent his views in our nation's capital. Under the guise of "cleaning up our political process," incumbent politicians increase their job security by making it illegal for average Americans to participate.

The Liberty Committee strongly supports H.R. 3801 and encourages you to speak in favor of this critical legislation -- while you still can. Don't let the political elite make you "The Obsolete Man."
http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/bills/?bill=5269186

[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

[4CJ]

The right of these diverse groups to determine when, where and how they voice their views should not be drowned in a sea of regulatory paper spewed from the Federal Election Commission

Fixed it.

[Congressman Billybob]

Notice that this author never mentions George Soros, who is the elephant in the room. Soros is very public about using his millions to "defeat George Bush." Yet this is what this, sad to say, "professor of political science" is defending.

Worse than that, to the extent that protection of "freedom of speech" for various interests in the population leads to the conclusion that Congress was wrong to pass CFR, the President was wrong to sign it, and the Supreme Court was wrong to approve it. In short, this is one more example that college professors often lack the ability to folloiw the logic of their OWN statements as applied in the real world.

As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a maroon."

John / Billybob

[P.O.E.]

Watching an old video tape (from the early 90's) last night, saw a commercial from Comedy Channel starring Alec Baldwin advocating CFR with a bit of schtick about the NRA. Just reminded me who's really behind the drive to stifle political speech.

[The_Eaglet]

The Liberty Committee strongly supports H.R. 3801 and encourages you to speak in favor of this critical legislation -- while you still can. Don't let the political elite make you "The Obsolete Man."
a href="http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/bills/?bill=5269186

The_Eaglet does, too.

Please help.

[Valin]

Done. I would also recommend writing a(snail mail) letter.

[Gen. Longstreet]

Notice that this author never mentions George Soros, who is the elephant in the room. Soros is very public about using his millions to "defeat George Bush." Yet this is what this, sad to say, "professor of political science" is defending.

What is wrong with defending the speech rights of George Soros? I never thought you'd be into the "free speech for me but not for thee" line of thought.

Worse than that, to the extent that protection of "freedom of speech" for various interests in the population leads to the conclusion that Congress was wrong to pass CFR, the President was wrong to sign it, and the Supreme Court was wrong to approve it.

This doesn't make sense: to the extent that these things are true, what?

In short, this is one more example that college professors often lack the ability to folloiw the logic of their OWN statements as applied in the real world.

How so?

As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a maroon."

Seemed like an intelligent article to me.

[Congressman Billybob]

The theory of Campaign Finance "Reform" is that large amounts of unreported, unregulated money are inherently corrupting in the political process. If that is true, then the huge amounts of Soros money, or Heinz Foundation money, or whatever, are just as corrupting as any other such source.

The expression that applies is, "What is aauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander." That's why I find this article both logically inconsistent and self-defeating. After all, it is the large amounts of money, not who writes the checks, that cause the corruption.

Does that make sense?

John / Billybob

[The_Eaglet]

Forward Link:
Starting the Climb Back up the Slippery Slope-C F R Thread, Day 98