Posted on 04/02/2004 9:27:16 AM PST by ElephantMan
Don't forget to suggest they meet with McCain and Feingold, the architects of the CFR monstrosity so beloved by the media. Paraphrasing McCain's recent comments, he said 'it walks like a duck, it sounds like a duck...guess what....I'ts a Duck!'.
I did, however, ask you what part of BCRA would make an e-mail illegal--your post: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!
After asking you that questions, about where BCRA says that, I began looking for the answer myself. Section 203 has the Orwellian critierion that an ad could be made if no one hears it--say anything at all, as long as no one hears it, or in this case--50,000 people. The section of BCRA uses the word "communication" and I wondered if that is what was being used by the expression: Even a simple E-mail alert will violate the law!
Moveon.org is right (never thought I'd type that), and the law is unconstitutional. That SCOTUS upheld certain portions of CFR, tells me more about the justices than the law itself.
Methinks the RNC should start these 527s and anything else they can think of. As Serpent Head would say, "this is wahr!"
5.56mm
These "new rules" are the laws you libs pushed for in the first place. I didnt want these "rules". You did.
Obey the law, you SOB's.
Man oh man, McPain catches on f-a-a-st, doesn't he (snicker)?
Feel free to use it or a version of it to write a letter to the editor of your local paper and you could substitute any names that may be appropriate:
Last year(2002), campaign finance regulations were signed into law in March and subsequently challenged by a number of litigants. The case went to the United States Supreme Court. In December, the court’s 5-4 decision affirming fundamental aspects of the law was, in Justice Scalia’s words, “a sad day for free speech.”
Justice Thomas described the decision as one that “can only be described as the most significant abridgement of the freedoms of speech and association since the Civil War.” Considering the gravity of the words of the dissenting justices, it is very troubling that the matter was afforded little media attention.
The legislation was called bipartisan, though the House vote—240-189—was split largely along party lines: 198 Democrats vote yes (12 voted no) and 176 Republicans vowed no (41 voted yes). U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee, and Michigan Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, both Democrats, voted yes.
The legislation was challenged by a number of groups and individuals, among them the NRA, the ACLU, the Republican National Committee and the California Democratic Party.
Justice Kennedy noted that the so-called Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act “would have imposed felony punishment on Ross Perot’s 1996 efforts to build the Reform Party.” Perot could have been sentenced to as much as five years in prison. That’s a bit harsh, considering the same court in the last four years “has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, and sexually explicit cable programming.” (Justice Scalia)
BCRA makes it a felony for a non-profit environmental corporation to broadcast an ad, within 60 days of an election, exhorting the public to protest a congressman’s impending vote to permit logging in national forests. However, they are permitted to create a dummy organization and with a kind of compulsory ventriloquism they can run an ad as long as nobody hears it (50,000 people) and as long as they refer to the congressman as “he whose name cannot be mentioned.” This applies to any union or for-profit corporation as well.
At the other end of the spectrum, Justice Thomas was the lone jurist opposed to the disclosure provisions of BCRA Section 201 that allows “the established right to anonymous speech to be stripped away based on the flimsiest of justifications.” Media companies must now disclose who pays for an ad before the ad runs and disclose the transaction even if the ad does not run.
An analogy to our nation’s early days could be posed in which essays written anonymously by “Publius” defending and defining what became our Constitution were published in New York newspapers during the fierce debates of the time. Under BCRA, one of the founding fathers of our country, writing anonymously in such newspapers, could have been subject to federal penalties and imprisonment.
Well, why has Congress done this? Supporters of the law argued that it was needed to stop political corruption—the quid pro quo kind of corruption in which one gives money to a congressman with the expectation of favorable votes. It was also argued that access to a politician proved there was evidence of undue influence; therefore, even the “appearance of corruption” should be considered as Congress regulates speech. Dissenting judges noted that the congressional record contained little evidence of vote buying, while there was evidence that indicated silencing criticism of government was behind the creation of the BCRA.
In the congressional Inferno, Ross Perot would be consigned to one of the lower levels of purgatory for his attempts to start another political party. One of the Founding Fathers, call him Madison, would be there for writing anonymously. Charlton Heston, former president of the NRA, for speaking the name of Clinton regarding legislation aimed at banning arms, would be hurled headlong into the pit with Perot and Madison. And Bill Gates, for failure to adopt an alter ego before running an ad campaign protesting the government’s treatment of Microsoft, would be silenced. How many others over the last 200 years would be found guilty of free speech under BCRA?
The late Sen. Paul Wellstone, a Minnesota Democrat, said of the BCRA: “This legislation…will whet people’s appetite for more.” It is only the congressional appetite that has been “whetted” for more infringements of the freedom of speech and association. The record is clear that more legislation is forthcoming.
Justice Thomas expressed such concerns: “What is to stop a future Congress from determining that the press is ‘too influential,’ and that the ‘appearance of corruption’ is significant when media organizations endorse candidates or run ‘slanted’ or ‘biased’ news stories in favor of candidates or parties?…The press now operates at the whim of Congress.”
Stupak’s seat is up for election this year. Stabenow’s is up in 2006 and Levin’s in 2008. All voted yes to these sanctions of free speech and association. How will you vote when the day comes for you to speak?
One, you can't refer to a candidate by name under certain circumstances, candidates are to remain anonymous, and Mr. Kerry is greatly confused by this--he doesn't know who the yuck he is.
Two, those with an established identity must assume a false identity, create a dummy, watering down their message.
Three, anonymouse speech is no more. Madison, Jay, and Hamilton published anonymously in New York newspapers during the fierce debates of the day.
The point of this exercise is to stop Soros, moveon.org. and lawless liberals
Conservatives are smarter. They'll know what to do next.
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.