Internet Campaign Exemption Defeated in U.S. House (The First Amendment Gets Slapped Down by Libs)

The Boston Globe ^ | November 3, 2005 | Rick Klein

[new yorker 77]

WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives last night narrowly turned back an effort to exempt all Internet communication from campaign-finance regulations, dealing at least a temporary defeat to a bill that would allow unfettered political advertising -- and unlimited spending -- in the vast frontier of cyberspace.

Supporters fell short of the two-thirds vote they needed to pass the measure in the expedited fashion Republican leaders were pushing for, with 225 members voting in favor and 182 voting no. But House leaders could bring the bill up again through the normal legislative process, and yesterday's vote indicates more than enough support to pass it later in the congressional session.

Critics argued against the measure by saying that it would create a gaping loophole in the three-year-old campaign-finance reform law that banned unlimited donations to political parties, also known as ''soft money," in campaigns for Congress and the presidency.

.....

[new yorker 77]

Supporters fell short of the two-thirds vote they needed to pass the measure in the expedited fashion Republican leaders were pushing for, with 225 members voting in favor and 182 voting no. But House leaders could bring the bill up again through the normal legislative process, and yesterday's vote indicates more than enough support to pass it later in the congressional session.

[thulldud]

Critics argued against the measure by saying that it would create a gaping loophole in the three-year-old campaign-finance reform law...

...through which freedom will roll like a mad elephant.

[satchmodog9]

Lovely. I need to find out if any of my Rino's voted against this.

[new yorker 77]

McLame and campaign finance has been a failure and a disaster.

President Bush clearly signed it to appease McLame and relied on the SCOTUS to strike it down.

Bad decision by Dubya.

Still, it can and will be overturned by Roberts-Scalia-Thomas-Alito-(Stevens/Ginsburg Replacement)

[new yorker 77]

I believe I saw about 45+ dems vote for it and nearly 40 Republicans vote against it.

[new yorker 77]

Vote Results here: VOTE RESULTS HERE

Republican-Yea-179--Nay--38--NV-13 Democratic-Yea--46--Nay-143--NV-13 Independent-Nay--1 TOTALS-----Yea-225--Nay-182--NV-26

[new yorker 77]

Vote Results here: VOTE RESULTS HERE

Republican-Yea-179--Nay--38--NV-13

Democratic-Yea--46--Nay-143--NV-13

Independent-Nay--1

TOTALS-----Yea-225--Nay-182--NV-26

[thulldud]

Bad decision by Dubya.

Which one, signing CFR or trying to appease McCain?

This was a veritable stack-nuke of bad ideas, imho.

[new yorker 77]

Both.

[mathluv]

The only good thing, and possibly why W signed it, was the doubling of hard money donations - which pubbies get more of than dims.

[new yorker 77]

It's bad law because it is unconstitutional.

He should have never appeased McLame.

[Dead Corpse]

Ah well... I guess the Dems think we don't need freedom, free speech, liberty, or other such outmoded concepts.

CWII can't be too far away...

[SpinyNorman]

"Ah well... I guess the Dems think we don't need freedom, free speech, liberty, or other such outmoded concepts."

Not when you have a deathgrip on the MSM and the schools.

[Dead Corpse]

Deathgrip? Too bad we couldn't put some truth into that and make it deadly to maintain such a "grip".