Posted on 11/02/2005 6:24:06 PM PST by livesbygrace
There is a 2/3rds requirement to keep our Bill of Rights rights, otherwise they only need 50%+1 to make up new 'rights'.
"That vote is one of the clearest indicators of conservative vs DEMs & RINOs there ever was."
Sho' nuff BUMP!
You can chalk this up to 'friends of Hillary'. They are going to do everything humanly possible to get her elected. This is only part of their master plan to regulate political speech.
"campaign finance".... thanks again Sen. McCainus
And GWBush
The FIRST AMENDMENT guarantees POLITICAL SPEECH to US citizens. It was not put into the Constitution to protect the right of Oregonians to put on live sex shows, as was recently ruled in that God-forsaken state. This FEC ruling is blatantly unconstitutional and this is one reason why we must fight for Judge Alito's confirmation. We dare not let government regulate political free-speech on the internet, the last, best expression of the First Amendment.
This one IS Bush's fault. He should have found that VETO stamp for this unconstitutional monstrosity that deprives US citizens of their First Amendment right to political speech.
I just hope Alito is in place of O'Conner when this goes to the Supreme Court. O'Conner was the swing vote that allowed CFR to stand.
If O'Connor is replaced by Alito we will. CFR was a 5-4 vote.
I think we should be worried.
What if somebody "posts alot"? What if they elections commission says that each post consitutes a 60 second effort of donation and that if you make 300 posts (for 5 hours) per week then you have to report your FR posting?
It really is an effort to regulate beyond the Moveon's. The want to regulate the moneyless campaigning. (ie Buckhead)
Has there been a case before the SCOTUS yet?
If not, there should be several.
We may have to do what the Canadians do for gag-rule trials for information: international websites. These things are easy enough to set up anonymously.
WHAT REPUBLICAN IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD DO THAT?
Protect your first amendment. Fight campaign finance law.
This kinda thing worked real well for Fat George, didn't it? Snort. They'll learn.
LOL
The vote:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll559.xml
The bill info:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:10:./temp/~bdb8CY::
The text:
Online Freedom of Speech Act (Introduced in House)
HR 1606 IH
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1606
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of public communication.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 13, 2005
Mr. HENSARLING introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration
A BILL
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of public communication.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Online Freedom of Speech Act'.
SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.'.
In a heep of trouble, especially with the money they collect .. which puts a smile on my face
However ... as much as I can't stand the loons at Moveon.org .... it sounds like this Bill effects all of us
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.