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

To: adam_az; IronJack; zingzang; wideawake; Cachelot; 3AngelaD; freedom_from_socialism; 8mmMauser; ...
This was already posted and discussed here, and you may want to view the commentary: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/881272/posts

I would make a couple points:

1) The Socialist Workers sued on this twice and won in both the Supreme Court (Brown v. Socialist Workers Party 74 Campaign Committee) and the U.S. Court of Appeals (can't recall the case name). So the FEC doesn't have much choice - if they deny the exemption, the Socialists will just sue them again, and probably win. And the FEC has to keep applying the law to the rest of us, because Congress won't repeal it, and the Supreme Court won't exempt everybody - only groups showing they will be especially "harassed."

2) The real question here is why should the rest of us have to disclose? Why should anybody? John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln didn't have to disclose their donors. The Federalist Papers were published anonymously. Where does the government get off keeping and publishing a record of our political activity? (Isn't that what they're doing here?) This is all part of "campaign finance reform," and it should all be declared unconstitutional by the courts. But since the courts haven't done so, we must fight these laws in congress.

3) Maybe we can use this. Why shouldn't Pro-Lifers get this exemption? Don't we get harassed? But if you give money to Right to Life's PAC, they have to file it with the FEC. Maybe some of our groups should compile a record of the harassment our members receive, and ask the FEC for an exemption.
25 posted on 04/01/2003 7:21:42 PM PST by Rensselaer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Rensselaer
I'd have to read the decisions to understand how a protection can be applied so unequally. It would seem to violate the Fourteenth Amendment, if nothing else. It strikes me that this is a flaw that can be exploited to destroy the whole notion of campaign finance disclosure. However, beware of what you wish for. Our enemies have deep pockets.
29 posted on 04/01/2003 7:59:05 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: Rensselaer
I think what you would ultimately discover are some names on that list which would embaress beyond belief some members of the media and hollyweird elite. As long as you are wealthy and leftist, the laws do not apply to you. If you need proof, ask O.J. and Bubba about that.
30 posted on 04/01/2003 8:37:04 PM PST by Beck_isright (If Susan Sarandon pooped in the woods, would ELF boycott her?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: Rensselaer
That's the thing- either everyone discloses, or no-one does.
What I disagree with is the exemptions.
I'd be curious to know what other groups are also exempt- the FEC website has no search capability, and I couldn't find any info about exemptions of any sort.
36 posted on 04/02/2003 3:27:15 AM PST by visualops (hardradio.com rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

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