Posted on 02/13/2002 5:14:57 PM PST by kattracks
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - The substitute campaign finance bill proposed by Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Martin Meehan (D-Mass.) is headed for a vote late Wednesday night or early Thursday morning, after two attempts to replace the bill failed.
But Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) is concerned about the constitutional implications and political ramifications of the bill, if it becomes law in its current form.
"This legislation tells democracy to shut up and sit down," said Hyde, arguing for an amendment to the Shays-Meehan substitute. "Political advocacy is strangled, not encouraged."
Hyde's amendment failed.
Now the nation's largest Second Amendment rights group says it is willing to go to court, if necessary, to preserve its First Amendment rights.
The National Rifle Association is one of many issue advocacy groups that have criticized the various versions of the Shays-Meehan bill, and its Senate companion McCain-Feingold, for infringing on the free speech and free association rights of its members.
"This legislation, in its latest of numerous incarnations, continues to contain provisions that would severely limit the ability of individual and like-minded Americans to participate in the legislative and political arenas, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, while the big media conglomerates and politicians are exempted," the group said in a press release Wednesday.
At the heart of the NRA and other issue groups' contention with the bill is an "electioneering blackout" provision that would ban most third parties from using the name of a federal candidate for 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days prior to a general election.
David Mason, the chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) told CNSNews.com Wednesday that the provision is almost certainly unconstitutional and definitely unenforceable. He says such a "blackout" would only create a window for incumbents to introduce controversial legislation with little fear of criticism.
Issue advocacy groups could bypass the ruling by complying with new rules that would essentially force them to create Political Action Committees (PACs) and to disclose their contributors' names to the FEC. Opposing candidates and media outlets would be exempt from the regulations.
"Why are the First Amendment rights of the media more important than those of American citizens?" asked the NRA. "Where in the Constitution does it allow politicians to subvert the First Amendment?"
NRA chief lobbyist, James J. Baker, is equally upset about the process supporters used to bring Shays-Meehan up for a vote.
"We are amazed as Congress seeks to 'reform' the process and seeks more 'public disclosure,'" Baker said, "that the amendments that will be offered were not even made public until the night before votes would take place, less than 24 hours before the votes are cast."
Baker says the group is ready to act if the bill passes with the "electioneering blackout" in place.
"Regardless of the final disposition of the 'campaign finance reform' legislation," he said, "we have no choice but to unalterably oppose this sweeping attack on the First Amendment rights of all Americans."
NRA Chief Executive Officer Wayne LaPierre says the group is willing to take whatever steps are necessary to protect the rights of gun owners to advocate for their political beliefs.
"Shays-Meehan attacks the very heart of the First Amendment. We will fight this infringement right up to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of all Americans," LaPierre added. "Fairness and free speech cannot be victims of politics."
E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Q Could you describe what exactly is wrong with the soft-money loophole?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, first of all, it is currently illegal to use soft money to pay off hard money debts. So it just seems like an odd so-called reform to take something that's currently illegal and legalize a million-dollar, multimillion-dollar infusion of soft money into the system. If campaign reform is designed to get soft money out of the system, then why are they changing something that is currently illegal about using the soft money and inviting more millions of dollars of soft money to pay off debts?
The other interesting issue about it, Steve, is if you take a look at the debts of the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee, the Republican National Committee does not have any hard-money debt; the Democratic National Committee has approximately $10.8 million in debt, much of it hard, much of it soft.
Q Might that be why you're opposed to the loophole?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that's also one of the issues why this midnight change was put in there. No change should be designed to help one party or another party, it should be a fair reform to all.
Does it rule out pictures, caricatures, and Pig Latin?
Ari and this guy are all but screaming VETO. Care to bet Mr. Mason's comments will be a big part of the veto speech? This is gonna be good, IMHO.
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.