Posted on 09/21/2007 11:33:22 AM PDT by pissant
This looks pretty straightforward. Where is the disengenuos part.
I should have scrolled down...
It’s an exaggerated, anklebiting, Romney hitpiece.
Don't kill him for speaking.
The fact that Fred has expressed doubt/disappointment about how CFR actually panned out. The fact that his intentions, as mentioned in this thread already may have been noble if not necessarily the best in execution...
Every campaign is going to come after Fred, just as Fred & co. will go after the others. Par for the course.
Pissant, I’ll give you a partial pass then. But toss in Mitt boy to balance things out.
The Fundamental Flaws in the McCain-Feingold Law
By Mitt Romney
Townhall.com
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
As I have traveled the country in connection with my campaign for President, I have been inspired by the commitment of countless Americans to shaping the future of America’s political system. Their commitment takes many different forms, from distributing literature, to attending a campaign rally, to contributing money to an individual candidate. I applaud this involvement, even if it is not supportive of my candidacy. An informed and active citizenry is vital to the long-term health of our political system.
Washington’s back-scratching political class apparently sees it differently. A few years ago, they locked arms around a measure sponsored by Senators John McCain, a Republican, and Russ Feingold, a Democrat, imposing unprecedented restrictions on the political activities of everyday Americans. Initiatives that had been legal for as long as anyone could remember were suddenly transformed into sanctionable offenses, all under the guise of “campaign finance reform.”
I have not spent a career in politics, but I know enough about the laws of this country, and the way Washington works, to understand that the McCain-Feingold law is riddled with shortcomings.
Let’s start with something basic: the American people should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without burdensome limitations. Indeed, such advocacy can play an important educational role in elections, helping to provide information to voters on a range of issues. Do we really want government telling us when we can engage in political speech, and what form it can take?
Yet McCain-Feingold prohibits some non-profits from broadcasting messages that mention the name of a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or in the months leading up to the general election. This Free Speech Blackout Period – also called the “electioneering communications ban” – is contrary to the spirit of a free and open issues debate. It also has the perverse effect of silencing some non-profit groups while empowering special interest groups.
As syndicated columnist George Will has pointed out, McCain-Feingold “regulates the quantity, timing and content of political speech … making it increasingly acceptable for interest groups to attempt to advance their social agendas by limiting their adversaries’ speech.”
The original intent of McCain-Feingold was to reduce the role of money and special interests in our political system. But on this too it has been a failure. Political spending has been driven into secret corners and more power and influence has been handed to hidden special interests. What is really needed is greater transparency, and disclosure, of campaign contributions – not more restrictions on political speech.
The American people should be able to exercise their First Amendment rights without having to think about hiring a lawyer. But that is the direction in which we are headed. In 2004, the non-profit group Wisconsin Right to Life wanted to run grassroots radio and television ads urging people in the state to contact their Senators (which the ads mentioned by name) and ask them to oppose the ongoing filibusters of President Bush’s judicial nominees. A provision in McCain-Feingold, however, was used to argue that the ads were illegal. Rendering a verdict on what constitutes acceptable political speech is something for voters – not judges – to decide.
So who, other than lawyers trained in the intricacies of federal campaign law, has benefited from McCain-Feingold? Washington’s political class. Restricting political speech ultimately hurts those in the greatest need of political speech – challengers to incumbent politicians (thus the joke that McCain-Feingold should be called the “Incumbent Protection Act”). Do we really need Washington politicians doing themselves more favors to protect their jobs?
America has a rich history of protecting speech, and these protections draw on the unambiguous language of the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” We step into dangerous territory when politicians start eviscerating our fundamental freedoms in the name of amorphous principles, like campaign finance reform. If I am elected President, a top priority will be to push for the repeal of this deeply-flawed measure, and restore the full freedom of political participation and expression to the American people.
Not me.
Ultimately we’ll be on the same team.
Except for Rudy folks...
There’s Slick Willard, straddling both sides of the issue!
LOL
Thanks for providing that. I hadn’t seen it before.
You can bet he hasn’t grabbed public land for his bud’s!
Nor has he filed questionable insurance claims.
Frankly, CFR is not much worse than all the other labyrinth of campaign finance laws preceeding it, with one MAJOR exception. The curtailment of free speech 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general. This is not some “gee it did not work out well” type thing. The NRA and Christian groups and most conservatives were howling at these restrictions. Fred supported them knowing full well what they did. He cosponsored not only the whole bill and helped draft it, he specifically cosponsored that language on the issue ads.
When McCain Campaigned For Romney In 2002, Romney Praised McCain For Standing For “Reform And Change” Saying “Those Are My Values.” “Romney also praised McCain for his general reform campaign when the Arizona senator came to Massachusetts to stump with Romney just before Romney’s 2002 election victory in the governor’s race. ‘He has always stood for reform and change. And he’s always fought the good battle, no matter what the odds,’ Romney said at the time. ‘Those are my values.’” (Eric Moskowitz, “Romney, McCain Spar On Campaign Finance,” Concord Monitor, 4/27/07)
Romney is a one man debate....
That’s it, just keep dropping your slanderous bombs against Hunter with no backup, no references. Kind of like Fred when he can’t remember why he voted how he voted.
That is also why he has a time with it. he knows it worked out wrong and was perhaps wrong to begin with. but it is hard to back off something of that magnitude. In the end i think he will. I don’t think he is happy about it.
He was my Congressman, I used to like him, a lot. My Family and I have given money to him many times. But now, when I think of him, all that comes to mind is the nasty Hunterites and mitt-bots who have constantly, and consistently, posted lies, half truths, distortions, and denigrations about FRed Thompson.
So be it.
..I got it
When you don't know what you believe or why you believe it, you need a third party to come up a position and a defense of that position--gosh these politicians make me want to hurl...
Except for the voters that the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect.
But, that’s beside the point that I was making about Fred — he claims to have supported the bill originally because it outlawed certain corporate and union financing of campaigns — things that had already been outlawed many decades ago.
The bottom line was that he didn’t understand what he was doing, but did it because it sounded good. He now knows that it was a mistake — but he should have understood that it was a mistake before he supported it.
McCain, at least, understood that he was silencing voter criticism of incumbents and makes no bones about it.
Which is totally irrelelvant to the arguments he makes, thanks.
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.