Blogs Bristle at FEC's Internet Political Speech Proposal (this affects you)

Captain's Quarters ^ | 3/4/05 | Captain Ed

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Regarding JimRob's opinion,

)

This was way back in 9/28 of last year.

[discussion of a Yahoo report, "FEC to Appeal Campaign Finance Ruling (Judge Also Orders FEC To Regulate Internet)]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1229856/posts


To: Diddle E. Squat

Vote out the RATS!! We cannot afford to allow John Kerry and the Democrats the opportunity to install any more of these socialist bastards.

posted on 09/28/2004 7:01:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"The judge also ordered the commission to take a step it had resisted: regulating at least some political activity conducted over the Internet."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1229856/posts

[Cold Heat]

Yeah, and they have no clue as to what and how.

That was my point.

The unintended consequence of regulation was the 527's rise to visibility.

The issues regarding free speech are being, or have been zapped by the courts. But they seem intent on hanging on to the soft money controls and the restrictions of advocacy ads several weeks prior to the voting.

I think this blogger thing is overblown. Their target is the 527's. A problem they created.

But, the thing is, that any attempts will result in some new gimmick. They are wasting their time and my patience.

I have always agreed with Newt's idea of opening it wide, and letting it bump. Just require immediate disclosure of all the money sources and put some teeth in it!

[Happy2BMe]

"Frankly, I don't like any of it, and the Supreme court needs to take a look see at this, rather than allow the appeals courts to tinker with it."

====================================

You can trust your country's security to the USSC.

* * *

"These judges who legislate instead of adjudicate, do it without being responsible to one single solitary voter for their actions. Among the signers of the Declaration of Independence was a brilliant young physician from Pennsylvania named Benjamin Rush.

* * *

The next step in denying God's sovereignty over the United States will go to these nine people . .

"The question is or at least ought to be, how can such a small, godless, minority have such influence over our courts and legislative processes?"

Answer:

U.S. Supreme Court, 2005 - The Oligarchy*

(All Your Sovereignty Are Belong To Us!)

Back Row (left to right): Ginsburg, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Front Row (left to right): Scalia, Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy

ol•i•gar•chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

sov•er•eign•ty
Variant(s): also sov•ran•ty /-tE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is SOVEREIGN; especially : an autonomous state

[Cold Heat]

LOL!

I don't know what you plan to do with all that.

You don't have grounds for impeachment, and replacement is the only thing we can do, and that is what we intend to do.

SCOTUS should have shot CFR down, as was expected, and not sent it back to the lower courts for tinkering. They passed the football back, and that was a mistake.

They can fix it, by accepting one of the numerous cases being brought against it. I hope they do.

[ihatemyalarmclock]

I stand with bush on the Terror War, Social Security reform, and any number of his other accomplishments as president.

But (and you knew there'd be a but) that said, signing McCain-Feingold was THE DUMBEST THING BUSH EVER DID.

And saying he expected the courts would overturn it, was THE LAMEST EXCUSE HE EVER MADE.

[MeekOneGOP]

Muchos gracias! :^D

[fouquier]

It is not a bill, the FEC is lost a court case Shays v. FEC and is being forced to change its rule to include the internet, they have a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on their website www.fec.gov and are accepting comments and suggestions until June 3 so anyone who is concerned should express those concerns to the FEC they are required by law to incorporate all comments into their final rule