Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Limits on cash stifle free speech (ACLUer Gets it Right)
St. Petersburg Times ^ | 5/28/2006 | Robyn E. Blumner

Posted on 05/28/2006 12:58:07 PM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian

Why don’t liberals understand the freedom-crushing nature of campaign finance reform?

How come it is easy for liberals to see the First Amendment interest in other overheated free speech issues, such as reporting on the classified operations of the National Security Agency or displaying Robert Mapplethorpe nudes, but when it comes to political discourse during an election season, they’re all for government restraints?

This is the same question that famed First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams raises in his autobiographical book Speaking Freely: Trials of the First Amendment. In one chapter, Abrams recounts a speech he gave to a Unitarian church congregation in New York City in 2000. The audience was very friendly toward his discussion of the Pentagon Papers case and the Brooklyn Museum case in which Abrams defended the museum after then-New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani sought to cut its funding. The mayor had been deeply offended by a Nigerian artist’s use of elephant dung in a painting of the Virgin Mary that the museum exhibited.

But when Abrams said that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform measure would likely put unconstitutional limits on political activity and promote censorship of political speech, his audience audibly objected.

Abrams and I are in the same tiny club. We believe in freedom for flag burners, Mapplethorpe and the Republican Party and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. We lose most of our liberal allies halfway through the list.

Click to continue reading.

(Excerpt) Read more at sptimes.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; bookreview; cfr; floydabrams; freespeech; speakingfreely
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: DoughtyOne
While I do have some sympathy for your point of view, I've got to say that I don't like the idea of influence going to the highest bidder. If there are no limits, that's exactly what you wind up with.

That's why there has to be transparancy: So the voter can see who the candidate is really representing.

21 posted on 05/28/2006 7:30:04 PM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian (Give a choice of things to believe in, I tend to choose the most interesting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Veracious Poet

So rather than having political speech controlled by who can pay for it, you end up with political speech controlled by government commission. Which still has potential for corruption.

Personally, I put more trust in a system where campaign speech is paid for by many sources, rather than one where campaign speech is controlled by one source.


22 posted on 05/28/2006 7:39:00 PM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian (Give a choice of things to believe in, I tend to choose the most interesting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: litehaus
Shocker this AM///Wasn't it? Resident Atheist/Socialist Robyn Blumner "sees the light" finally..on something.

She's been fairly good about supporting rights, as she sees them, even when it's to the advantage of those she disagrees with. I don't think she's always right (though I probably think so more often than you do), but I think she strives to be honest.

23 posted on 05/28/2006 7:44:22 PM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian (Give a choice of things to believe in, I tend to choose the most interesting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Veracious Poet
would be to provide free access to television broadcast for ALL those running for office,

Seesh, what a bunch of big government socialists on FR this weekend.

Those kind of feelings are more fitting at DU

Go back home and leave us partiots alone.

24 posted on 05/28/2006 8:00:28 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (God has blessed Republicans with really stupid enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
The revocation of the 17th amendment is the only campaign finance reform we need.
25 posted on 05/28/2006 8:04:41 PM PDT by PA Engineer (Liberate America from the occupation media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldtimer2; Celtjew Libertarian

I think Rush said it best:

Well, there was that, and then McCain lost it about these 527s. MoveOn.org, he said, [McCain impression:] "Look, my son – my stupid 15-year-old son – even he would say it's partisan politics and as such, it's illegal. What do we have to do here, huh? Huh?" Now, that was in testimony before the Senate. I'm sitting there saying, "I wonder how many people are hearing this?" His law, his McCain-Feingold law says that these 527s are illegal because they're engaging in partisan politics.

My friends, what has happened to us? We have allowed this silly attack on the First Amendment, McCain-Feingold. President signed it, don't know why. Supreme Court found it constitutional, can't understand it, and now this? I mean, there's more money in politics than ever, and more of it by definition of law is illegal than ever! This McCain-Feingold law is an absolute joke. There is more money than ever and it's all under the table now and it's not under control of the parties. It's in control of these wackos like George Soros.
So everybody says, "How could this have happened?" [McCain impression:] "We put that loophole in there but we didn't think anybody would see it. You have to have loopholes so you can go back with new legislation to be a king again to close it!" Well, they saw the loophole, senator, and they're exploiting it with partisan politics. (Laughing) "That's right! That's right! Partisan politics, and it stinks. We said you can't do that and we're going to stop it, you hear me?" Okay, so it was a... (Laughing) What McCain-Feingold wanted to do, it did just the opposite! It was designed to take money out of politics. Instead of taking the money out, McCain-Feingold is sucking in more money than at any time in history and by definition, most of it's illegal. Thank you, senator!


26 posted on 05/28/2006 9:52:02 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/gasoline_and_government.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: supercat

As a BIG proponent of the liberties espoused first in the Declaration of Independence and then the USCON & BORs, what I suggest is leave the media talking heads alone to anal-ize politics as usual, just make it a BIG no-no for politicos that hold office from dog catcher to POTUS to receive ANYTHING from ANY source other than the office they occupy.

Country first and foremost, or not at all.

In fact, any media appearance by candidates should accommodate ALL or NONE, and those that violate cross that line would be prosecuted under the same penalties as traitors.

I know, I can always dream cause it'll never happen in my lifetime, but rest assured it WILL happen one day if the humanrace survives that long ;-)


27 posted on 05/28/2006 9:52:27 PM PDT by Veracious Poet (Cash cows are sacred in America...GOT MILKED???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

I could sling some trash your way, as you've earned it, but I'm not going to stoop ad hominems that would equal yours...

FWIW, I despise wealth redistribution and have probably been raped by the IRS of $$$ on an annual basis that is in FAR excess of what you gross - My only reason for my believes is that I have seen the politicians inside the beltway stray FAR from the vision of the Founding Fathers, and I see no other way to restore the gov't. to serving We The People, rather than viewing We The People as a resource to be exploited.


28 posted on 05/28/2006 9:57:14 PM PDT by Veracious Poet (Cash cows are sacred in America...GOT MILKED???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Veracious Poet
The proper of use of gov't. in campaigns, IMHO, would be to provide free access to television broadcast for ALL those running for office

Will the government then reimburse the TV networks and the local stations for lost revenue? Or should the government just outright nationalize the media?

Besides, ads for "ALL" those running for office would fill 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for months without a repeat! Would YOU watch that?

29 posted on 05/30/2006 11:38:06 AM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Veracious Poet

"Nothing will change in this country until ALL campaign financing is outlawed..."

I'll agree with this only when congressmen and Senators are limited constitutionally to 1 term of office and never allowed to run for any other office ever again.


30 posted on 05/30/2006 11:39:57 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (In a world where Carpenters come back from the dead, ALL things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Veracious Poet
... free access to television broadcast for ALL those running for office

Good to see someone advocating free broadcasts for the Communist candidate, the Sunni candidate, the Shiite candidate, the Social Democrat candidate, the Democratic Socialist candidate, the Christian Socialist candidate, the Christian Democrat candidate, the IWW candidate, the Socialist Labor candidate, the Socialist Workers candidate, the Peoples Movement for the Liberation of Palestine candidate, the Shining Path candidate, the NAMBLA candidate, and others.

31 posted on 05/30/2006 11:47:23 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
I'll agree with this only when congressmen and Senators are limited constitutionally to 1 term of office and never allowed to run for any other office ever again.

That is also a solution, ironically though just as remote in its chance of happening in the near future...

32 posted on 05/30/2006 2:51:16 PM PDT by Veracious Poet (Cash cows are sacred in America...GOT MILKED???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

If one is able to convince the election board that they are a valid candidate via legally verified petition for candidacy (1%+ of the represented electorate), which would be logical to exclude nutjobs, then who are you or I to tell them they are unqualified to run?

Presently we have a two-party ol' boyz club excluding anyone that disagrees with them, would you say that is more "American"?


33 posted on 05/30/2006 2:56:29 PM PDT by Veracious Poet (Cash cows are sacred in America...GOT MILKED???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Veracious Poet

I didn't say they were unqualified to run. Who pays for 45 Presidential TV campaigns or so? Taxes? Some minor European parties live on the campaign expenses (as do some in the US.)


34 posted on 05/30/2006 3:05:24 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson