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

It seems so obvious: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to peacefully assemble..." According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "abridge" means "to reduce in scope: diminish." It's difficult to understand how the authors of the First Amendment could have been more plain.

Nevertheless, in 2002, Congress passed and the President signed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). Among the many provisions of the new law, one specifically bars certain groups from engaging in political speech in the days leading up to an election unless they adhere to strict federal regulations. BCRA provides that if their message mentions any federal officeholder, corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations cannot advertise on television or radio for 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election unless they use federally regulated "hard dollars."

Now, let's be clear about what this means: a group of freely assembled citizens is banned from saying anything about a member of the government in the days before an election unless the group pays for the ads with certain kinds of government-regulated contributions. That certainly sounds like speech is being "diminished" or "abridged," doesn't it?

The Supreme Court didn't think so, and in late 2003, it upheld virtually all of the provisions of the new law, holding that BCRA's regulations were an acceptable means of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption.

The best way to eliminate corruption from politics remains voting out the scoundrels and putting the corrupt ones in jail. That's why free speech, especially the freedom to criticize elected officeholders, is most necessary when government is corrupt or flouting the will of the public. Yet, thanks to BCRA, criticizing a federal elected official through the best means possible - broadcast television commercials - has become nearly impossible, even if the aim is to point out positions a Member of Congress has taken on an issue or votes he or she has cast.

By making it more difficult to criticize incumbents, point out their positions on issues, and highlight votes they have cast, BCRA makes it harder to defeat them. Thus, BCRA not only limits speech; it protects incumbents from serious electoral challenges. This is precisely the kind of situation that the First Amendment was designed to prevent.

As they crafted the blueprint for our government, the Framers understood that governments, by their nature, restricted freedom. But in order to protect individual liberty, the Framers created the Bill of Rights, specifically enumerating certain rights and placing them beyond the reach of any government restriction. None of these could be more unambiguous than the First Amendment.

In other writings, we learn that the Framers were especially concerned about protecting "political speech" - the free flow of ideas, dialogue, and criticism of and about government and politics. They knew that for the republic to survive, political debates and campaign contests had to be spirited. They knew that citizens must be free to criticize and vigorously oppose government action without fearing legal consequences.

Nevertheless, the Court has spoken and has decided not to evaluate regulation of campaign finance and political speech through this prism.

That leaves Congress as the only forum for regaining our rights of speech and association. Fortunately, some in Congress are beginning to have second thoughts about BCRA, and its criminalization of core speech.

Congressmen Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) have introduced the First Amendment Restoration Act which repeals the provisions of BCRA banning union, corporate, and non-profit advertising in the days before elections. Blunt and Bartlett deserve accolades for understanding that BCRA criminalizes the very speech that should be most protected. They also deserve praise for recognizing that government regulation of speech should not create job security for those writing the law. Free speech advocates can only hope that more of Members of Congress sprout similar backbones.

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

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

Yes, it does.

Hopefully our phone calls and letters to Congress will give them backbone to defend the freedom of speech and pass H.R. 3801 .

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.