Stifling free speech-C F R Thread, Day 103

WASHINGTON - In opening the Senate debate on campaign finance reform, Republican John McCain asked his colleagues to "take a risk for our country." But his proposals would stifle, not expand, political debate. Congress should instead relax election controls, thereby encouraging more rather than less participation in the democratic process. Building on his highly touted, but unsuccessful run for the White House, Sen. McCain has joined Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., to propose banning so-called "soft money" contributions to political parties and restrict independent issue advertising close to elections.

A competing proposal from Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., backed in principle by President George W. Bush, would limit soft money while leaving advertising alone. All would increase the contribution limit for candidates.

Advocates of "reform" regularly assert that there is too much money in politics and that it is corrupting the process. In fact, Americans spend too little on campaigns. All told, some $4 billion was devoted last year to elections - just $14.30 per person, about the cost of a CD, or two or three meals at McDonald's. Less than $500 million of that, or $1.80 a person, was in soft money. That hardly seems excessive for candidates for president, Congress, governor, state legislature and local government.

Given the importance of these positions, and their impact on the country, Americans are terribly cheap. Why not spend the equivalent of at least two CDs on politics? Of course, any amount of money can be misspent. But there's no evidence that this $4 billion is "corrupting" politics. Real bribery, with campaign cash exchanged for specific positions on legislation, is virtually unheard of. Instead, most money is given to candidates with a record of support for or promises to support a general way of thinking.

Trial attorneys and labor unions tend to back Democrats; small businesses trend Republican. Campaign cash may reinforce a candidate's preexisting views, but such aid rarely determines them. People who give money may enjoy greater access to politicians, but the playing field will never be level. Those representing leading publications, labor unions, trade associations, multinational corporations, civic organizations and political parties will always get a more serious hearing than the average citizen.

Political contributions and expenditures provide a practical tool for anyone who would otherwise have little influence on the political process. Soft money and political ads are particularly important mechanisms to promote a more competitive electoral system. The biggest campaign problem is the dominance of government by a permanent political class. House members enjoy a re-election rate of roughly 98 percent. Senate re-election rates have averaged 90 percent over the last two decades. Congressional staff positions offer equivalent job security. The longer legislators stay in office, the more they vote to spend.

Alliances between career legislators and Washington's permanent institutions of influence - bureaucrats, journalists, lobbyists - create an "iron triangle" that pushes government spending ever upward and regulations ever outward. Solutions are hard to come by. Eliminating the advantages of incumbency are one, but politicians would sooner commit ritual suicide. Term limits are another, but Republicans and Democrats alike resist this step to the death. Ensuring that challengers have an opportunity to raise sufficient campaign funds is another.

While PACs typically back incumbents of both parties to preserve their access, my Cato Institute colleague John Samples points out that parties, in contrast, "concentrate equally on vulnerable incumbents and credible challengers." Issue ads, which criticize positions taken by candidates or their parties, generally aid challengers since incumbents have greater media access.

In any case, tinkering with campaign rules only changes the relative balance of power. Notes Samples, "Bans and limits have not suppressed the demand for favors created by the growth of government, but have instead led to substitutes for direct giving to candidates."

Indeed, PACs resulted from stringent limits on individual campaign contributions. McCain-Feingold would magnify the influence of already dominant individuals and groups, such as unions and the media. Moreover, interest groups denied the right to contribute soft money will look for new opportunities to make independent expenditures on behalf of favored candidates.

Beyond the practical electoral impact is the constitutional issue. The quintessential purpose of the First Amendment is to protect political speech, like issue ads. To ban such speech when it most matters, before an election, would reduce the Constitution's most basic protections to a nullity.

Individuals and groups naturally spend generously to influence government, because government dramatically influences their interests. The most effective way to reduce what they spend is to reduce the influence of government.

In the meantime, Congress should open the political system, eliminating contribution restrictions other than quick and complete public disclosure. McCain-Feingold is a sheep in wolf's garb, a measure that would protect the incumbent political class rather than the public.

First Amendment Restoration Act
Bill # H.R.3801

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

Cosponsor Total: 37
(last sponsor added 03/18/2004)
2 Democrats
35 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

This article is still relevant as far as the case against CFR.

I agree.

Hopefully Hagel and McConnell will lead the charge to repeal the speech restrictions in the Senate.

Meanwhile, we need to encourage the House of Representatives to 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.