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.
Either we are to believe that Congress is inhabited by a bunch of morons so unfit for representing We The People and so lacking in intellect to understand the meaning of the First Amendment or they all are a bunch of corrupt crooks hellbent on a specious ignoble disasterous attack against the very essence of our God given rights protected by the Constitution for which generations of Americans have sacrificed their lives in the defense of Liberty.
So Congress, what's it to be? Moreover, if you were so concerned about current Campaign Finance Laws, why didn't you prosecute Clinton/Gore's underhanded unlawful campaign funding?
Well, they got caught cheating. Bush now has what he needs to finally shoot things down, and then tell them what he wants. And you can bet that he will lay down the law firmly.
McCain will be called in, as will Shays, and Bush will tell them, "I trusted that you'd come up with something fair, and you let this crap get attached instead. Guess what, it's going back with a veto, and I'm also going to spell out what I WILL sign."
Bush has an advantage in the fact that his opposition has again overextended itself, and he can now lay out his alternative, which he will describe as a "fair deal." Soft money will take a hit, but he's going to rip them to shreds, IMHO. Believe me, there's enough of a smoking gun here that CFR will be very dead when Bush is done with it.
Today I thank god for the judicial branch in the tree of liberty.
If this thing sticks it's all over. Everything.......
I thought Ann Coulter was thinking of running against Shays. Whatever happened with that?
Haven't you noticed? Nobody cares about CFR.
Why should they? This bill gives great power to the mainstream press (guess how they vote) while stopping conservatives from spending money when it really counts (ie 60 days before an election). Also, I'll just bet the version that passes lets unions spend money during the blackout period; such money will disproportionately go to the dems.
Favorable coverage in the press, like always, but now without the risk of their opponents paying for rebuttals in advertisements. It will cut their operating costs dramatically. If the press were truly impartial, every single liberal advocacy group would be fighting right alongside the NRA on this.
Robert Mugabe would love this provision for his March elections. Mow let us presume this passes andthe Supreme Court has yet to rule said staute unconstitutional and people are arrested for opposing candidates who are against the Secoond Amendment. The resultant Civil war would be an absolute disaster. By depriving enough people of the chance to make their case to the publiv enough would be radicalized that the blood in the dtreets would soon become a river. In short this legislation is a bomb that will destroy our nation. It does not even have to be upheld by the Supreme Court to cause its havoc merely to be subject to prolonged litigation while it is still being enforced.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
No matter how corrupt this country's government has become, I have always viewed free speech as a pressure valve that has kept this country from erupting like a volcano.
Now, if the politicians, media and unions want to close that pressure value, then they do so at their own peril.
Now, if the bill gets passed into law then come mid-August (when this law is suppose to kick in) and the people of this nation have realized what the politicians, media and unions have done.
Well I wouldn't be surprised if there was open rebellion by December or January.
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.