Posted on 11/02/2005 6:24:06 PM PST by livesbygrace
Because the House of Representatives has completely different rules from the Seante.
Remember, for 40 some years the RATS controlld the House and treated the republicans like chattel. The rules reflect that 'disdain' for the minority party and make challanges to the majority near impossible.
Can any of you tell what this means?
Does that make sense?
Congressman Billybob
The House voted 225-182 for a bill that would have excluded blogs
hmmm 225 huh? i dont rember there being 225 democrats in office so that must mean that there are a whole hell of a lot of small government "conservative" republicans that voted for this s**t.Wich is excactly why I dropped out of the republican party and am now a card carrying big L Libertarian
Read: ...has opened up a loophole for uncontrolled commentary of elected officials that must be closed....
No, because this website doesn't specifically endorse any candidte over another in an election. Jim Robinson does not take any mony from the RNC as far as I know. This is an independent website.
Nearly the exact same bill is still pending as H.R. 1605 ...
HR 1605 IH
A BILLTo 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. 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.'.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1605:
HR 1606 IH
A BILLTo 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.'.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1606:
Latest Major Action: 11/2/2005 Failed of passage/not agreed to in House. Status: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 225 - 182 (Roll no. 559).
Blogs, FR, and the internet in general have given the individual voices a megaphone to be heard above the others, but they are still individual voices that have a right to be heard.
Pretty soon, they'll say that my vote is an in-kind contribution to a candidate, and so must be banned.
-PJ
Actually, it protects an inalienable right. The government doesn't grant free speech.
Senators John McAnus & Wuss Findgold. Amend this!(_1_)
These 140 Democraps, 38 Rinos and 1 independent should be forcefully remove from office for attempting to violate our inalienable right to free speech. When the He!! are we going to march on Washington and do it!
"Fortunately we have a Supreme Court that will stop this in it's tracks (ROFL)."
No problem - Bush will VETO it before it gets that far. \s
The internet, blogs, email etc. is the most grass roots close to the people vehicle ever available to the populace so of course the "professional" pols/elites would want to regulate it to death.
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.