Posted on 08/25/2004 12:13:18 AM PDT by grassboots.org
Is anybody else concerned that both parties want to clamp down on "Unregulated" speech. Since when is political speech supposed to be regulated? (I know, I know, I read the Supreme Court's twisted logic, too...)
The 527s are the only way plain folks can be heard without having to go through the parties, talk show call screeners or newspaper editors to reach the "masses". (Notice, I didn't mention blogs, chat rooms and discussion groups - I still assume the masses don't know we exist!)
527s aren't shadowy - they are already regulated and open as much as anybody - all big donors are on the IRS website, all board of director members are listed, all monies spent must be accounted for, etc.
We are now part of a 527; but I was a first-amendment believer before that!
www.grassboots.org
I'm concerned about the outcry from the Kerry camp to stop the SBVT ads. I didn't hear the Bush camp make demands to stop moveon.org from sliming "W".
Isn't this really a Free Speech issue. ( What is "unregulated" speech?)
Kerry's arguement is directly with SBVT.
They invited Mr Kerry to sue them.
Kerry asked for a debate on his service record ( "Bring it ON!")
He didn't realize who his real enemy on this issue was. Right there he makes their case that he's "Unfit to Command"
President Bush denounced all ads from both sides, at his press conference in Crawford, Texas on Monday morning, even echoing the statements made by the GOP chairman over the weekend that the SBV are part of the GOP or BC'04, shooting down the charge of "illegalities" the media has been trumpeting. Make what you want from that, I think it's pretty clear where the President stands on the issue.
Yes, I am concerned, very much. In calling for a ban on 527 organizations, Bush has basically said that the only people who should be allowed to speak to the public during an election are the parties themselves, and the news media.
Instead, Bush should be answering Kerry's whine with, "527s are the result of free speech in action, which is always a mix of good and bad -- John, why do you want to muzzle them?"
I think Bush's approach has been all wrong, but the encouragement of 527s isn't necessarily a good thing.
Before CFR, people pumped their money into the two major parties, and there was accountability for the message. CFR basically encourages uber-wealthy folks like Soros, etc., to sit behind the scenes and pull strings. It has, with the aid of the MSM, enabled Kerry to distance himself from a message his surrogates are putting out. I don't care for that a bit.
And, in my opinion, 527s actually make speech much harder for the average folk.
Before I could simply pool my money together with other like minded Republicans and give to the candidate or party.
Now, unless there is some incredibly wealthy Soros-like figure out there ready to prop up a 527 for a guy like me, I'm going to have a hard time finding an outlet for a medium range contribution.
For all the talk about them, there are not many 527s really making that much noise. On the right, where no billioniares have stepped in, there really is only the SBV having much of an impact. On the left it is mainly MoveOn, which would be nowhere without the millionaires backing it.
I'd rather be able to give to may party or candidate than have to organize a separate group that can't coordinate its message with the candidate.
I think that's what Bush is getting at.
Club For Growth has come out with some pretty damning stuff on Kerry, but Kerry hasn't tried to stamp them to bits through the FEC. Kerry is trying to stamp out the SBV's, because too many of the Swifties know Kerry all to well, more so than most Massachusetts voters do.
I guess you think that folks who want to address issues in a campaign that aren't the same message as a candidate or party must be silent. In that case, gun owners, pro-lifers, and even free-speechers need not apply. Our 527 could get a lift from a donation of a dollar but President Bush said he wants to end not just TV ads but "all that stuff" (Does he mean flyers, phone banks, etc.?).
We may not care for surrogates but anonymous pamphleteering was part of the founding of our country. Why can't you pull your money together now with the 527s?
I wish Campaign Finance would go away, too, but you don't keep pinching it till there's nothing left of free speech.
I've seen their website and I like their message. Maybe its because I live in Cali where very few TV spots are being run, but I haven't seen them do a TV ad, though. The only ads I've seen are MoveOn ads. I've seen the SBV ads only on the web.
I shouldn't be limited to just giving to them. I ought to be able to give to my candidate. And I ought to be able to coordinate my message with my candidate.
I've only seen the advertisments of all 527's on the news shows on FOX News. I live in what is not typically a battleground state, let alone an "important" state for that matter (Montana) to any party vyying for the Presidency, so typically all I see are the standard fare type ads from either the DNC or the GOP, so what I see is typically what one would see without CFR and the 527's. Basically what shows here in Montana is the same DNC or GOP ad one would see on a channel like FOX News during commercial breaks.
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.