Posted on 03/24/2006 12:30:09 AM PST by Jim Robinson
In which of the following countries are certain types of political free speech a crime? A) China The answer may shock you -- because if you answered both "A" and "B," you're very close to being correct! Here's what happened: In 2002, the Senate and House passed what is known as "McCain-Feingold" -- a constitutionally questionable law that severely restricts the ability of ACU (and other not-for-profit organizations) to give YOU non-partisan information on candidates for federal public office prior to an election. McCain-Feingold essentially regulates -- almost to the point of impossibility -- political "advertising" 60 days prior to a federal election that appears on "any broadcast, cable or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising." So McCain, Feingold, and others of their mindset when they realized they had overlooked the Internet in their efforts to regulate political speech -- went to court. And -- big surprise -- a U.S. District Court Judge (Colleen Kollar-Kotelly) appointed by Bill Clinton, ruled that Internet communications were also covered under "McCain-Feingold!" Fortunately, the House of Representatives has put forth the Online Freedom of Speech Act (H.R. 1606) and a companion bill (S. 678) is under consideration in the Senate. Both are designed specifically to exempt the Internet from the draconian "McCain-Feingold Act." But we have to ACT NOW because a vote on H.R. 1606 -- to preserve free speech on the Internet -- may come any day now! And the vote may be very close! Use the hyperlink below to send your URGENT Blast Fax messages to President George W. Bush, the leadership of the United States Senate and the leadership of the United States House of Representatives. Tell them that you are outraged that a federal judge up-held McCain-Feingold and has taken away your freedom to speak out on the Internet. Demand that they reaffirm the First Amendment by voting yes on H.R. 1606 and S. 678. http://www.acuactionnet.net/hr1606.html AOL Members Use This Hyperlink I H.R. 1606 Affects You Too I wonder what some of our elected officials think our Founding Fathers meant when they wrote: Congress shall make no law
abridging the freedom of speech
. Because it would appear they want to abridge it and abridge it and abridge it again until people like you and me are bound and gagged and helpless. Addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference in February this year, conservative thinker and columnist George Will said, And we are right now well into the most concerted and most dangerous attack on freedom of expression in this country since the Alien and Sedition Acts, which themselves were unsettled and therefore not designed to be permanent as the McCain-Feingold regimen of speech-rationing by the federal government is. Let's read what "McCain Feingold" says one more time and add the "Internet" to the legislation as McCain and Feingold intended: "ANY [Emphasis Mine] broadcast, cable or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing or telephone bank [or Internet transmission] to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising." Think of the implications: Do you post a lot of opinions in forums or bulletin boards? Do you frequently pontificate or express opinions in Internet chat rooms? Do you maintain a blog that is available to the general public? If any of these situations applies to you -- then guess what -- "McCain-Feingold" may apply to you too! Use the hyperlink below to send your URGENT Blast Fax messages to President George W. Bush, the leadership of the United States Senate and the leadership of the United States House of Representatives. Tell them that you are outraged that a federal judge up-held McCain-Feingold and has taken away your freedom to speak out on the Internet. Demand that they reaffirm the First Amendment by voting yes on H.R. 1606 and S. 678. http://www.acuactionnet.net/hr1606.html AOL Members Use This Hyperlink I Do You Remember Rather-Gate? Why is the Left so rabid, so hysterical in its opposition to H.R. 1606? The answer should be obvious: They weep for the good old days when the only major sources of news were ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and newspapers like the New York Times. Or to put it another way: We all remember what happened just before the 2004 presidential election. Dan Rather and some producers at CBS -- in a blatant attempt to influence the outcome of the election -- published a FRAUDULENT story about President Bush's National Guard service. Fortunately, bloggers (private citizens) were able to spread the truth and expose the fraud behind this story! Would that have happened if "McCain-Feingold" applied to the Internet? That's a good question! And maybe that's why the New York Times came out AGAINST H.R. 1606; claiming that allowing free speech to go unregulated on the Internet would cause "a cornucopia of political corruption." Use the hyperlink below to send your URGENT Blast Fax messages to President George W. Bush, the leadership of the United States Senate and the leadership of the United States House of Representatives. Tell them that you are outraged that a federal judge up-held McCain-Feingold and has taken away your freedom to speak out on the Internet. Demand that they reaffirm the First Amendment by voting yes on H.R. 1606 and S. 678. http://www.acuactionnet.net/hr1606.html AOL Members Use This Hyperlink I The Internet Is A Powerful Weapon Dont think that John McCain and his liberal cronies arent aware of the power of the Internet. They know you are making a difference in Washington. Every time you jam their fax machines and shine the light of day on their plots, they are reminded of the power that you -- as average citizens -- are wielding. The Internet is the last vestige of free and effective political speech in America. It's whats left of the Voice of the People. Let's keep it that way! And please ACT NOW -- because a vote -- to preserve free speech on the Internet -- may come any day! Use the hyperlink below to send your URGENT Blast Fax messages to President George W. Bush, the leadership of the United States Senate and the leadership of the United States House of Representatives. Tell them that you are outraged that a federal judge up-held McCain-Feingold and has taken away your freedom to speak out on the Internet. Demand that they reaffirm the First Amendment by voting yes on H.R. 1606 and S. 678. http://www.acuactionnet.net/hr1606.html AOL Members Use This Hyperlink I J. William Lauderback AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION Powered By
B) The United States(And you could be 100% correct in a matter of days!)
However, when McCain and Feingold initially proposed this legislation, they could not foresee the massive power and influence that average citizens would eventually come to wield through the Internet and for that reason --"McCain-Feingold" did not explicitly mention communications over the Internet.
They cant get rid of Rush and Fox News, but they can still crush the political websites. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has made that a tantalizing possibility.
But they can beat down H.R. 1606 and when that happens, ACU and other activist websites (and possibly even your blog) will be effectively silenced their mouths stuffed with reams of government regulations and miles and miles of red tape.
And they don't always like it. In fact, some actually fear it. The power of the average citizens threatens their incumbency... it threatens the back-room deals they make with special interests... in essence, it threatens business as usual in Washington.
Dont let Congress take away your First Amendment rights!
Executive Vice President
American Conservative Union
1007 Cameron Street | Alexandria, VA 22314 | 703-836-8602 | Fax 703-836-8606
Ping to some incredibly important stuff...
S. 678 - Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 3/17/2005) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 3/17/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
H. R. 1606 - Sponsor: Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] (introduced 4/13/2005) Cosponsors (9)
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).
H. R. 4389 - Sponsor: Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] (introduced 11/18/2005) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 11/18/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
H. R. 4664 - Sponsor: Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] (introduced 1/31/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 1/31/2006 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
Posted on 03/23/2006 11:31:44 PM PST by Lancey Howard
(Go to the link for the first half of this excellent and informative column for some the background info. Presented below is the best part, and I believe this provides a pretty good summary of what Jim, and hopefully everybody else, is concerned about. This is deadly serious business.)
_____________________________________________________
In any case, on the question of internet regulation, the FEC in fact brought its expertise to bear, and determined that it would not be wise to apply traditional regulation to the internet - indeed, as outlined here, it determined that the internet did not pose a threat or political corruption, and so exempted much of the web from regulation. The result was that Representatives Shays and Meehan sued, with the support of Senators McCain and Feingold, to force the FEC to regulate the internet. And won.
So here is where we are. The FEC, appointed for its expertise in the area, has determined that the internet does not pose a threat of corruption, and exempted it from much of the McCain-Feingold law's coverage. We have no idea if the President, charged with executing the law, agrees with his FEC appointees, because he has not said. Moreover, even if he did say, he cannot legally bend the FEC commissioners to his will, nor remove them for not following his policies, so he cannot be accountable. On the Congressional side, Senators McCain and Feingold, and their House counterparts, Representatives Shays and Meehan, lacking any meaningful way to exert legislative oversight (and probably lacking a majority to do so), decided to invoke the third branch, and so went to courts and sued. A judge, not appointed for her expertise in campaign finance or the internet, held that the FEC was mistaken.
With the FEC now under Court order to act, Congress as a whole seems lost as to what to do. A majority of the House voted to preserve the FEC's original regulatory exemption by writing it into the statute - but because the bill was brought up under special rules, it needed a 2/3rds vote to pass, which it did not get. Last week, the House simply punted on the issue. It seems fairly clear that the question of the internet exemption is exactly the type of issue that Congress intentionally left to the expertise of the Commission - expertise then ignored by Federal District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, at the behest of four members of Congress, represented by a bunch of foundation funded lawyers who work for "public interest groups" with no members.
This is the state of the modern regulatory state. It seems a far cry from the separation of powers and popular accountability envisioned in the Federalist papers.
thank you, sent the URL to a ton of people, and they will do the same!
I suggest Mr. Robinson, we find out which politicians at the Federal Level at on the side of Freedom of Speech on the internet and then concentrate efforts on those who are not.
BUMP!!
I respectfully disagree. We need to hammer ALL of them just so nobody changes their mind, and so they see that it is in their interest to work to bring their colleagues on board.
ping
Of course, accountability is the very last thing these statist clowns want... 'twas ever thus, though.
I've listed the bills above. 1606 has already failed in the House. Look up who voted how.
Could you please provide a link as to a full list of those who voted Yea and Nea on 1606.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll559.xml
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 559
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
H R 1606 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 2-Nov-2005 8:08 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
BILL TITLE: Online Freedom of Speech Act
Yeas Nays PRES NV
Republican 179 38 13
Democratic 46 143 13
Independent 1
TOTALS 225 182 26
---- YEAS 225 ---
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carter
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
English (PA)
Eshoo
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hoekstra
Honda
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
Latham
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Otter
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Udall (CO)
Waters
Watson
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (FL)
---- NAYS 182 ---
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Boehlert
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hefley
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kirk
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (VA)
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Wu
---- NOT VOTING 26 ---
Ackerman
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cubin
Etheridge
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hyde
King (NY)
Marshall
McCollum (MN)
Menendez
Miller (FL)
Norwood
Oxley
Pearce
Pombo
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Reyes
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Stark
Young (AK)
Thank you for the list. But what does "On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass" mean?
It just the way things are worded. A motion was made to suspend the rules, they do this all the time. Who knows what rule they wanted to suspend.
See post 15 where FOG724 partly answered my question.
Thank you for clearing that up.
You are most welcome. I'll be going to DC lobbying in May. I will probably bring these bills up if there is no movement.
Good luck, maybe you can make inroads before then by asking the NRA for help. This does effect them to in that their internet speech shall also be silenced.
I gave up on the NRA when they supported CARA, a government land grab.
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.