Shays-Meehan Lawsuit Challenging FEC-C F R Thread, Day 99

Shays-Meehan Lawsuit Challenging FEC Rules for Unpaid Broadcasts and Charities Proceeds

The recent Supreme Court decision upholding the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) has the potential to dramatically expand the scope of regulation of federal election activity. The decision did not, however, address the act's applicability to 501(c)(3) charity organizations, which the Federal Elections Commission has already exempted from all BCRA requirements. A suit filed by BCRA co-sponsors Reps. Chris Shays and Marty Meehan to overturn the FEC exemption will now quickly move forward.

BCRA prohibits corporations (including nonprofits) and labor unions from paying for broadcasts that refer to a federal candidate (e.g., an image of the federal candidate) within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. These broadcasts, dubbed “electioneering communication," impose criminal penalties for rule violators. BCRA provides exemptions for news broadcasts as well as candidate debates and forums. The act also allows the FEC to create further exemptions for broadcasts that refer to federal candidates if they are wholly unrelated to an election.

In October 2002, the FEC published final rules implementing the electioneering communications provisions of the law, incorporating two provisions advocated by OMB Watch. First, that the rules applied only to paid broadcast advertising. Second, that 501(c)(3) organizations-- already prohibited by IRS rules from engaging in electioneering-- would be exempt from the rules.

BCRA co-sponsors Shays and Meehan filed suit in the federal district court in the District of Columbia to overturn the FEC rules. The judge delayed action until the Supreme Court issued its decision in McConnell v. FEC. On January 7 the Court ordered that briefs be filed by February 27, and responses no later than March 31. A quick decision in expected.

If the Shays-Meehan lawsuit is successful in its efforts to overturn the exemption for 501(c)(3) organizations and unpaid broadcasts, charities would have to immediately change the way grassroots lobbying and public education campaigns are conducted during a federal election season. A lobby campaign that has a paid broadcast ad that refers to a federal candidate during the restricted period (30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election) would face criminal penalties.

Further complicate rules for grassroots lobbying and public education; Chill nonprofit lobbying for fear of criminal penalties; Require nonprofits to raise funds for separate segregated funds (SSF) to pay for grassroots lobbying broadcasts to avoid the penalties; Increase administrative burden from disclosure requirements; and Open up the door to donor disclosure for 501(c)(3)s since contributors to the SSF would be disclosed. Nonprofits need to be aware that some reformers are calling for an extension of the electioneering communications rule to non-broadcast communications, which could conceivably include email correspondence, web site announcements, phone banking, direct mailings and canvassing.

The Shays-Meehan suit raises fundamental questions about advocacy rights for charities. Will criticism of a member of Congress or the President broadcasted 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary be a felony? Will charities be able to broadcast an incumbent candidate’s stance on an issue during the restricted time period? If not, then will be there be less accountability in the legislature?

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

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.