Posted on 03/24/2006 9:23:56 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Virus Alert! McCain-Feingold is set to infect the Internet.
By Bradley A. Smith
For two years, campaign-finance reformers fought in the courts to force the Federal Election Commission to regulate the Internet more heavily. They won, and legislation is in the works. Two bills are before Congress, H.R. 4900 and H.R. 1606. The “reform community” is strongly backing the former, and, to garner support for it, is claiming that it offers more than adequate protections. It doesn’t.
Before McCain-Feingold, or “BCRA,” federal campaign law regulated “expenditures” and “contributions” made “in connection with” federal elections or “for the purpose of influencing” federal elections. In the 1976 case, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that the definition of “expenditures” and “contributions” should be limited to “express advocacy,” that is, phrases such as “vote for,” “defeat,” or “Smith for Congress.” Otherwise, the Court held, the statute would be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, since speakers would be uncertain about what speech was legal — after all, virtually any political discussion might “influence” an election. The Court chose the “express advocacy” standard because express advocacy is unequivocally designed to affect elections, and because it establishes a bright line between regulated and unregulated speech that most speakers can readily understand.
BCRA reached beyond express advocacy to include expensive advertising paid for by sophisticated political actors, or targeted specifically to relevant voters in close proximity to impending elections. This was done by extending federal campaign law to regulate a limited set of “public communications” in addition to “expenditures” and “contributions.” Congress had in mind large scale campaigns involving large amounts of cash. In McConnell v. FEC, the Supreme Court upheld this extension of the law against a challenge of overbreadth, in large part because of the limited reach of the term “public communication.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
If they could just get it so people could not comment about politics, while outside of their own private bedrooms, unless they're an elected office holder, then politics would be safe from the corrupting influence of criticism.
Doesn't Foolsgold blog over there?
Yep
According to the Supreme Court, all political speech must be banned, because it has a direct affect upon the votes of other voters, and therefore interstate commerce, and thus falls under the regulative jurisdiction of Congress.
The logic is beautiful.
Have they been reading your rants?
That came from the "Old" Court, complete with the usual emanations and penumbras from the usual suspects.
May very well wind up with this entire issue (including McF in its entirety) before the Roberts Court.......and my money says ALL of it has a life expectancy of about thirty milliseconds after the paperwork hits the desk.
(BTW, welcome back, TC.....missed you the past couple of weeks.)
God damn John McCain.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
The FEC didn't appeal it. Conveniently.
Reserve some of your words for the president that signed this thing into law. A Democrat couldn't have done better.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
There once was a Senator, Feingold
For incumbency he sold his soul
With his buddy McCain
For political gain
Our freedom they've cynically sold!
I'm sure that started it. The timing is uncanny.
Maybe somebody told FEC to hold off until we got ALL the skunks in the woodpile located.
That H.R. 4600, for one example, sounds like McF for the Internet. (Or the NY Times Welfare Act of 2006)
Save time, rounds and deodorizing time.
File for Declaratory Relief under the United States Constitution.
Now.
RD
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.