Tell me about it... Darn customers! ;-}
It's really bad that I have to hide the FR screen when my customers come in... Today, it was non-stop! LOL!
I'm here now and on giggle patrol!
Posted on 02/22/2002 11:16:27 AM PST by ReaganGirl
The Free Republic Network announces the formation of the First Amendment Action Network (FAAN) a project of the American Conservative Union and the Free Republic Network.
ACU and FRN have joined forces to bring you the latest information about grassroots activities going on in your area and broaden our mobilization efforts to protect the First Amendment and our Constitutionally-guaranteed right to Free Speech.
We hope that you will utilize the link below to join our efforts to stop the U.S. Congress from implementing unconstitutional campaign finance “reform” (CFR) legislation.
Once your logged in the FAAN you will have access to the latest information on CFR as well as the ability to post articles and comments and participate in discussion threads with conservatives from around the country.
While you’re there click on the ACU link to write a letter to your Senator telling them to stand up for the Constitution and stop CFR. This bill will go to the Supreme Court if it is passed, and IT WILL BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Demand that your Senators do their job, and protect every American’s right to Free Speech.
Tell me about it... Darn customers! ;-}
It's really bad that I have to hide the FR screen when my customers come in... Today, it was non-stop! LOL!
I'm here now and on giggle patrol!
Post him in RED!
Keep the faith...remember the guys in white hats are suppose to win in the end...and that's us.
The white hats
As you know, I did not support final passage of H.R. 2356, the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. Personally, I believe six principles must be considered for any reforms to our political process. These include: preventing voter fraud and ensuring current laws are followed and enforced; preserving and protecting the First Amendment to the Constitution; respecting workers' beliefs and paychecks by ending political taxes on their pay; encouraging citizen participation and grassroots political involvement; requiring full and timely disclosure of all campaign contributions; and ensuring a level playing field between incumbents and challengers.
I believe the bill's unprecedented selected restrictions on soft money would make national political parties less able to support grassroots activity, candidate recruitment and get-out-the-vote efforts. Restrictions on corporate and union contributions to parties not only trample First Amendment rights of parties and their supporters in a manner well beyond any compelling governmental interest, but they also dry up funds that expand political participation. Further, Shays-Meehan would ban all contributions from parties to non-profit organizations. Political parties frequently give money to non-profit political groups to facilitate voter registration and issue-based voter mobilization effots. These restrictions threaten the viability of non-profit organizations that exist for these purposes, and will likely further suppress voter turnout by student and minority groups.
The two-party system has been a stabilizing force in American democracy for two centuries. Parties serve as a filtering mechanism for money and interests groups and tend to center the American political system away from extremes. In my view, the unintended consequences of Shays-Meehan is to move soft dollars away from parties and directly into special interest groups, which tend to be more on the extremes of the political spectrum. This forces candidates to cater directly to those groups for financial and electoral help, instead of their political party. In short, I believe the new law will not eliminate special interest dollars, but will instead embolden and strengthen special interest groups at the expense of the parties.
The Shays-Meehan bill contains misguided and unconstitutional restrictions on issue group speech and, as a consequence, further empowers the media to influence the outcome of elections. Nothing in this bill seeks to regulate the ability of the media -- print, electronic, broadcast or cable -- to exercise its enormous power to direct news coverage and editorialize in favor or against candidates. This would be clearly unconstitutional. However, under Shays-Meehan, the only entities that would be free to comment in any significant way on candidate's records would be the media, wealthy individuals, PACs and the candidates themselves. Corporations and unions need only to purchase media outlets if they want to have influence over candidates -- their wealth and influence will not be abated by these so-called "reforms."
Equally important, Shays-Meehan fails to include adequate paycheck protection provisions. While Shays-Meehan infringes on business' abilitiy to participate in the political process, it does nothing to put an end to the mandatory collection of union dues for political purposes. All political contributions should be voluntary, and workers have a right to know how their union dues are spent.
Shays-Meehan is a bill that reduces Congressional accountability, silences the voices of those who dare to criticize public officials, and makes it harder for challengers to raise funds necessary to compete with the overwhelming advantages of incumbency. It is, in essence, incumbent protection dressed up as reform.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I hope you will continue to share with me your views on matters of importance to you.
Sincerely,
Tom Davis
Member of Congress
ACU and FRN. A great pair to draw to!
By the way, Arizona FReepers. Dittomom is the one who headed up the Recall McCain petition drive last year. It may be time to dust that off and put this putz away where he can't do any harm. Show the Senate what happens to people who use the Bill of Rights for Depends.
|
Top Ten Myths About |
|
|
||
|
Link to: | PDF (62k) | |
|
|
Produced by the
The Center for Legal
and Judicial StudiesPublished by
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Ave., N.E.
Washington, D.C.
20002-4999
(202) 546-4400
http://www.heritage.org
Dispelling a number of stubborn myths about the current campaign finance proposals is critical now that the perennial debate over campaign finance reform has returned, with the House taking up H.R. 2356--the self-styled Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 ("Shays-Meehan"). The Senate already has approved a similar version of campaign finance controls on political speech, S. 27 ("McCain-Feingold"); and the President has indicated that he likely will sign whatever Congress passes. Thus, the House may be the final bulwark against a serious violation of our First Amendment rights.
Myth #1: "Shays-Meehan is constitutional." Any bill that attempts to "equalize" citizens' political speech through criminal and civil penalties for "excessive" or "unfair" speech violates the First Amendment, which provides in plain terms that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" (emphasis added). Many provisions of H.R. 2356 are unconstitutional. Although the constitutional debate is complicated by the convoluted nature of past laws and current proposals, the proof of the pudding is that approximately 30 of 32 similar "reform" statutes were struck down in the federal courts. (For a list of key cases, see the James Madison Center for Free Speech February 2001 report on S. 27 at www.jamesmadisoncenter.org.)
Myth #2: "Congress need not consider the `complicated' constitutional issues." According to this myth, Congress can pass a questionable (or blatantly unconstitutional) bill and let the courts sort things out. But every Member of Congress takes an oath, required by Article VI of the Constitution, to uphold the Constitution. This duty is non-delegable. Although the courts may have to rule on some aspects of a law after years of uncertainty and litigation, Congress has an independent duty not to criminalize speech that it knows, or should know, to be constitutionally protected.
Myth #3: "Only right-wingers and partisan Republicans oppose Shays-Meehan." Although this is hardly an argument on the merits of the bill, it is not true. Besides Representative Albert Wynn (D-MD) and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the AFL-CIO opposes key provisions of the bill. So does a large coalition of other liberal groups, including the Alliance for Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union. According to the Washington director of the ACLU, the legislation "represents a double-barreled attack on political freedom in America."
Myth #4: "Congress should decrease the amount of campaign spending." If the First Amendment means anything, it means that Congress cannot try to limit the amount of campaign speech or spending. The Supreme Court has made clear that this is a prohibited purpose, and the intent of many reformers to achieve this end renders their legislation unconstitutional. It is a fundamental tenet of the First Amendment that government has no business trying to limit the amount or type of political discourse.
Myth #5: "Shays-Meehan would decrease the amount of campaign spending." Even if it were acceptable to try, almost every reform proposal regulating political speech would increase the amount of campaign spending. As long as any First Amendment protections remain, enacting convoluted campaign regulations (constitutional or not) is like trying to dam a stream with a pile of sticks. Campaign spending eventually will flow through the dam, over the dam, or find another path. But because such indirect spending is often less effective than direct contributions to candidates, the amount of money chasing the same end will increase. All past reform efforts prove this basic law of economics and politics--unless government's size and scope are significantly reduced.
Myth #6: "Shays-Meehan would equalize citizen participation." The only effective way for most citizens to be heard during an election campaign is to band together in interest groups such as unions, fraternal organizations, and community groups. H.R. 2356 would restrict the rights of poor or middle-class citizens to engage in campaign activity through such groups, but it leaves wealthy individuals and huge media corporations alone. Plutocrats and powerful media corporations should be free to speak, but it is wrong to increase their power artificially at the expense of less affluent citizens.
Myth #7: "Shays-Meehan would help challengers defeat incumbents." No bill would pass if it hurt incumbents, and H.R. 2356 substantially helps incumbents. The Canadian experience with reforms similar to those proposed in Shays-Meehan confirms this: Incumbents lost even fewer elections, and because of new spending caps, campaign ads became almost totally negative. According to one scholar, this caused "widespread disinterest and disgust at the issue-less, invective-driven campaign."
Myth #8: "Banning soft money will increase transparency and accountability." Attack ads produced by unknown or "sham" groups have grown as a result of past reform laws. They will surely mushroom if accountable and well-respected organizations are prohibited from contributing or using soft-money contributions. Unions, corporations, and political parties are important repeat players with strong interests in maintaining their long-term reputations. These groups often pull ads that are criticized as unfair. Under Shays-Meehan, unaccountable groups will fill the void and run attack ads in increasing numbers.
Myth #9: "Independent speech can be `redefined' as a candidate's speech." Shays-Meehan attempts to redefine normal contacts between independent interest groups and a candidate as collusive so that any later campaign activity by the independent group is treated as an in-kind gift to the candidate. Try as it might, Congress cannot change by statute what the Supreme Court has said is a constitutional distinction. Unless the campaign activity itself truly is coordinated with the candidate, independent groups may spend as much as they want on election activity. Even if the redefinition were constitutional, however, the result would be that affiliates would form to engage in election activity that is less transparent and accountable than under current law.
Myth #10: "Nothing will please the constitutional purists." Standing up for the Constitution is noble in and of itself. However, constitutional purists have offered a practical and effective reform proposal: lifting contribution limits to candidates but requiring rapid disclosure of significant contributions. If voters are outraged by large contributions and always equate them with corruption, as "reformers" claim, then rapid disclosure is not only self-enforcing, but also far more effective than a thousand other regulations that simply channel political contributions elsewhere.
--Todd Gaziano is Director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
FGS
FGS
This is a district that elected Marilyn Lloyd-D for 7 or 8 straight terms, and I would hate to see it go Rat again. Still, the Hamilton County Republicans need to call Wamp out and threaten to cut off his donations if he doesn't come to Jesus. Chattanooga Republicans, what's going on with this guy?
bump!
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.
