Posted on 02/15/2007 7:58:09 PM PST by Spiff
February 13, 2007
The Honorable John McCain
United States Senate
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator McCain:
On behalf of millions of grassroots Americans represented by the organizations listed below, we write to express our stark opposition to any legislation that further curtails free political speech. Specifically, in a January 26, 2007 article published in The Politico, a top aide in your office announced that you will introduce legislation in the 110th Congress “to further clamp down on independent ‘527’ groups.”
The irony, of course, lies in the fact that the ‘527’ organizations you now seek to silence are a direct consequence of McCain/Feingold’s abridgments of free political speech.
Senator McCain, the Founding Fathers couldn’t have been more clear in drafting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when they stated unequivocally, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech… or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” We maintain that these words mean exactly what they say, and stand at the core of our rights as American citizens.
Furthermore, we find it puzzling that just as you seek to stifle even more political speech via legislation aimed at ‘527’ organizations, you refuse to answer direct questions about whether you’ll limit your own ability to speak by campaigning for President within the limitations of the presidential public financing system. Indeed, the most direct answer you have given to date was during a November 19, 2006 interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week, during which you responded to the question by stating, “I don’t think – it depends, one, on what other candidates do…”
To be clear, as a matter of principle we consider it fundamentally improper for taxpayer dollars – even if voluntary – to be used to subsidize political campaigns. As you seek, however, to further suppress the voices of the American people at times when it’s most important for them to speak – during elections – we remain curious as to why you haven’t committed to applying similar speech limitations to your own campaign.
We hold the 2002 McCain-Feingold legislation to be one of the greatest legislative assaults on the First Amendment ever passed by Congress. Just as we opposed that legislation, so too do we oppose any further restrictions on political speech. Moreover, we find it troubling that you would introduce and advocate new speech-stifling legislation at a time when it appears that your presidential campaign is willing to forego similar limitations in favor of your political aspirations.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that you neither introduce nor support any further legislation designed to muzzle political speech.
Respectfully,
Jeffrey Mazzella, President, Center for Individual Freedom
David Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union
James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel, James Madison Center for Free Speech
David N. Bossie, President, Citizens United
Richard Viguerie, Conservative HQ
David Ridenour, Vice President, The National Center for Public Policy Research
George Landrith, President, Frontiers for Freedom
Chuck Muth, President, Citizen Outreach Project
Doug Bandow, Vice President for Policy, Citizen Outreach Project
Jason Wright, Institute for Liberty
Mark Fitzgibbons, GrassrootsFreedom.com
Kay R. Daly, President, Coalition for a Fair Judiciary
Michael D. Ostrolenk, Co-Founder/National Director, Liberty Coalition
Dr. William Greene, President, RightMarch.com
Steve Milloy, Publisher, JunkScience.com
Peggy M. Venable, Director, Americans for Prosperity – Texas
Christine Carmouche, GrassTopsUSA
David Strom, President, Taxpayers League of Minnesota
Richard O. Rowland, President, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
It would have been cool if Free Republic was on this list.
Yeh!!!!
Good letter. There are probably a thousand conservative orgs across America who would have joined in signing, if asked.
There was an article a day or two previous that intimated that McCain's campaign has broken the 527 rules to his benefit.
This won't get much play with the rah rah rah Rudy-Rooters!
The Founders would've found McCain Feingold, pure trash!
The only question I have is: Who would irrevocably destroy our liberties faster and more irretrievably, McCain or Clinton?
My monies on Giuliani!
We would all sign this and a petition for him to quit the primary races and throw his support to the best candidate that will be able to beat Her Highness or BO. If he wasn't in a state where there is a Dem guv, I could see him, if a Pub wins the Presidency, becoming SecDef. His gruffness and ego would work well in blasting our enemies. As Prez, I would be worried about the rubber room for him!
The Manchurian Candidate has already clearly stated that he would rather have "clean government than freedom of speech." Just the fact that he thinks that you can have clean, fair, or any other expression of good governance without free speech is an obvious proof that the man is a true Manchurian Candidate.
He is probably as dangerous a man in the White House as would be any of the democratic candidates, maybe worse than some. What a sad day when someone like this would be considered a potential front runner for the nomination of one of the major parties to the office of the president. Free Speech is more important than almost anything we enjoy as constitutional rights.
SEN. JOHN McCAIN: THE ULTIMATE "RHINESTONE HERO"
SEN. JOHN McCAIN: THE ULTIMATE "RHINESTONE HERO" Part II
U.S. Sen. John McCain is no War Hero
John McCain: The Manchurian Candidate
McCain Is Booed by Labor Activists
McCain Rides to Kerry's Rescue: "John Kerry is Not Weak on Defense" (Today Show alert)
John McCain SCREAMS AT 9/11 FSA MEMBERS FOR OPPOSING HIS BILL TO GIVE AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS
A number of articles on McCain. (some the same as above)
McCain/Soros by Rabbi Areyh Spero
Soros' "Reform" (an article about Soros‘ instrumental hand in McCain/Feingold)
Not Child‘s Play [McCain/Schumer bill could effect FR?]
McCain's Letter (McCain aligns with Global Enviro activists)
The Turning Point on Global Warming (McCain and Lieberman Op-Ed Alert)
Climate bill sets stage for debate (Sens. McCain, Obama, and Lieberman join forces)
McCain Looked into Caucusing with Democrats
McCain Still Disliked by Fiscal Conservatives (Club For Growth)
John McCain Goes Left for Money
Sens. Snowe, Collins to head Maine exploratory committee for McCain
I don't think I've read a single pro-McCain poster on freerepublic. at least not in recent years. Maybe I've missed someone, but I don't think anybody who posts on this site has any use for McCain. I hope the same is true for GOP primary voters.
The "Alien and Sedition Acts" were passed by the Congress and signed by John Adams. The Acts made it unlawful for anyone to say anything disrespectful against the President, among other things. It is a great mystery why John Adams, who had fought so hard for our freedom and for the ratification of the Constitution, would have ever signed such legislation. It is as mysterious why John McCain, who suffered so much for our country, would ever author the McCain-Feingold legislation; or why George Bush would sign the bill and the Supreme Court would ever let it stand.
The Alien and Sedition Acts did not outlaw criticism of the Vice-President, who was Thomas Jefferson at the time. Jefferson took a tremendous amount of personal abuse because of that "loop-hole" in the legislation. McCain-Feingold is analogous, in a way, in that it allows the 527's to bash opponents in a way that is not open to individuals. Jefferson broke with the Federalist Adams, founded a new party, and went on to defeat Adams in the 1800 presidential election. Jefferson carried like-minded people into Congress, and in a brilliant piece of remedial legislation, quickly removed the Alien and Sedition Acts.
I despise the McCain-Feingold Act. Can history repeat? Who can lead the country to roll back the insult to our cherished First Amendment? If John McCain were to offer to make amends for his Act by promising to remove it if he were elected President, I might at least listen to his campaign rhetoric.
There have been a few but even they have backed away from him. Or they don't want to be flamed. I wouldn't do that. No need when I have a ream of uber-negative articles about him that no one can refute. To support him is to support the destruction of the Republic. Whether intentionally or through ignorance doesn't really matter.
Dead heat. They'd just take different paths to the same goal.
Well said but I don't think McCain can be rehabilitated that easily. His sellout of POWs in Vietnam and his shameful treatment of their families for one and there is so much more.
I agree with you TE.....I get very agitated when this subject comes up. It was poorly said by me, but I wish I had said that even though McCain has infringed on me, I would none-the-less feel obliged to listen to him. Your list of links is very valuable....I will use the links if I have to as the campaign progresses. I have heard that McCain and Kerry were authorized by Congress or the White House to negotiate an end to the controversy over our missing or dead Viet Nam POW's. It was part of the deal over our recognition of the dictatorship there now running things. Is it true that McCain agreed to have all the records of sightings,etc destroyed, and that a company controlled by Kerry's cousin was given contracts by the dictatorship to act as its real estate agent in dealings with the rest of the world? I would like some elaboration on this....any links?
I am not sure if what you're asking about is in my links or not. I think so and it would be in one of the first several excluding the 'Soros' story. I don't recall if McCain agreed to have those records destroyed. It sounds familiar but that's not good enough.
I do remember for sure that Kerry's cousin did benefit in business dealings in Vietnam that occurred right after they (McCain and Kerry) basically scuttled any further U.S. investigation into POWs. Your memory seems to be better than mine. I expect your details are correct.
This is one of the main reasons I will never vote for him.
Methinks McCain would do so more effectively. If (God forbid!) the Witch is elected, there's a good chance she'd face really intense pubbie opposition, as the Bent One did. Indeed, it could be even stronger because she lacks his political guile. OTOH, if McCain were elected, being a nominal pubbie, he'd be able to subvert whatever might be left of the Republican party and actually do a lot more damage than the Witch could.
Indeed, my prediction has a strong historical precedent in something that happened in Illinois about 40 years ago when I was living there and going to law school. The Illinois Republicans won a great victory in the 1966 election, taking both houses, as I remember, of the state legislature. They also elected a soon to be infamous RINO, Richard Ogilvie (sp?), governor. Illinois didn't have a state income tax at the time, the vast majority of Illinois voters didn't want one, and Dirty Dick and the pubbies were elected to keep it from happening. One of the first things Dirty Dick did was propose a state income tax and force it through the legislature with the help of the DemonRats. Being a pubbie, he was able to pick up enough RINO votes in the legislature to combine with the DemonRat votes and make it happen. If his DemonRat opponent had been elected and proposed a state income tax, the pubbies in the legislature would have stopped him cold.
Thus, in many respects, I fear McCain even more than the Witch, and seriously doubt that I'd vote for him in the general election, since the Witch would probably be the lesser of two very horrible evils.
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.