Posted on 03/10/2006 4:46:24 AM PST by UMCRevMom@aol.com
The proposed regulation of the grass-roots, under such soothing titles as "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act," would result in that most un-American of all concepts: censorship of political speech.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The onerous legislation would require groups to notify Congress in advance of the details of their grassroots communications and file costly and burdensome quarterly reports showing the costs and other details of those commucations.
The dangers of these regulations are not only that they are unconstitutional, but would be an effective means to silence many grassroots causes who cannot afford the costly compliance requirements, as well as provide Congress, the institutional media and grassroots opponents of grassroots activities.
Check article in Monday's Washington Times explains why incumbents fear the grassroots. http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060305-093316-4503r.htm.
Brought to us by the same folks who gave us CFR, it looks like. The makeup of the Supreme Court has changed a little since that was OK'd by them, though.
Yes the same issues are in the CFR bill they are just amplifying it. Top dog for the Republican Presidential Candidate---doesnt that make you proud ? S/
Yup. This is sick. And 'surprise-surprise' look who's behind it.
I'd vote for a piece of driftwood before I'd cast a vote for McLame.
I think lots of voters these days feel left behind by the Republicans, which is not a good thing. It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out in a couple years.
CFR was enough of a screwing for the American public, mcinsane needs to finish off those pesky grassroot Americans also.....
Someone on another thread reminder me about this:
There are very good reasons we have representative government, with some semblance of rational, thought-out decision making, rather than the angry masses ruling via direct voting.
I think James Madison put it best in Federalist 10 when he said:
"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
I hate to say it, but when it comes to controlling people, most politicians favor more control in THEIR hands. That is a big part of what CFR (McCain Feingold) was about. They wanted to control at least their side of the debate. They don't want the people to have control of the subject of the debate or the argumenst used.
ping for later read.
Of course the politicians in Washington (and everywhere else) are addicted to power. That's why they want to confiscate as much of your money as they can. It gets them elected and re-elected and gives them more and more power once elected! Any moron can figure that ou... Oops! Nope. The electorate is bloated with morons who simply can not get this obviousness into their lame brains--and somehow think those power-hungry politicians are going to protect them.
There's a reason why D.C. is called...
the District of Criminals.
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.