Gingrey (R-GA, 11) interested in FR, and in law restoring free speech

Gingrey is a OB-Gyn physician, a first-time conservative Congressman from a democratic gerry-mandered district spreading through democratic regions in west GA and metro Atlanta.

(1) I asked him to sponsor legistlation REMOVING the free-speech restrictions imposed under McCain-Feingold. He thought it was a good idea, but didn't know how much other Congressional support there would be.

Therefore: CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND CREATE SOME SUPPORT for removal of this section of the law.

Constitutionally, even though the vast majority of the bill has been upheld by the Court (thanks to liberal judges demanded by the Senate!), there is no reason the single section restricting free speech can't be also removed by a second law. The Constitution doesn't have a clause IMPOSING restrictions (yet!), so a law removing ("illegally-declared-but-liberally-declared-constitutional") restrictions should be "legal."

Further, this would FORCE the liberals (in Congress, in the press, and on the courts!) to visibly oppose free speech by publically opposing a law that explicitly restores free speech!

Removing the "money" talking points, and the other dnc-focus points of McCain Feingold from the discussion may get this bill through since it would be targetted ONLY at the 60-day advertising limits - if not in this session, maybe in the next.

Best? Sure; completely remove McCain-Feingold. But it won't happen in today's media climate, given the power this yields to the "national press corpse". So we shouldn't weight down a "possibly-successful" bill with dreams of revoking the whole thing.

It is at least a step to remove this clause. After all, even the whole Amendment invoking Prohibition was removed!

(2) Write, call, or email Gingrey's office(s) local and naitonal to support this bill.

Since it's not proposed yet, we need to show Phil that free speech is supported at the grass roots level. His office, frakly, will listen mostly to GA constituents, but evry call will help!

(3) He is interested in what we discuss here, in how widely-read the Free Republic site is, and how much more thorough we are than "the natioinal press corpse" who slavishly repeated only what they read from the dnc's faux fax sheet. When he expressed an interest in Free republic, I invited him to register and contribute (or at a minmum read along silently) to protect his public persona.

So, I'm asking you respond to his web-site above and do three things: Thank him for supporting Bush in his war on terror;

Ask to submit his bill lifting restrictions on politcal speech imposed by the liberal press and the democrats,

Warmly welcome him to Free Republic, and recommend a screen name for FreeRepublic.com

"Respectfully written, but I disagree until corrected by an Admin Moderator or Jim R.

A direct meeting with a Congressman about breaking news of the week, even if informal and not covered by the "mass media," DOES properly belong to "Breaking News."

Further, since a "call to action" is specifically invoked to have Freepers help correct a bad Supreme Court ruling, your judgment that "Activism" isn't invoked is incorrect."

I agree completely! Thank you for your post; it looks like CFR repeal may be picking up steam!

I have NOT been able to log on to FR since Friday night. Every time I did, my computer crashed (no joke!)

However, I kept trying, because I sent the following to the Denver Post and the Washington Times. I don't know if it will get published, but I urge anyone who wants to to feel free to cut, paste, and modify and send along to your local paper. In this way, regular people can be educated about the importance of repealing at least this part of this law.

Valin, I pinged you on this but I'll post about it first thing tomorrow a.m. on the daily CFR thread.

:)

"Dear Editor:

Contrary to the expectations of just about everyone in the country, perhaps even of the President who signed the bill, the Supreme Court has upheld Campaign Finance Reform.

Although the name of the bill is deceptively attractive-who doesn't want "reform"?--the law it embodies is a direct attack on the most fundamental right all Americans hold--the right to political free speech. No longer can groups of citizens purchase, in the 60 days prior to a general election, radio or t.v. time that criticizes a politician.

The freedom to express political opinions is at the heart of all other freedoms. That is why the Founders put it in the First Amendment. We cannot have the right to privacy, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be free of unlawful searches and seizures, without the right to challenge the politicians who govern us.

Indeed, many have described this law as the "Incumbent Protection Act," for it makes it very difficult for incumbents to be held accountable for their voting record. In today's sound-bite world, 60 days is a lifetime.

That is why I have sent a letter to Rep. Tom Tancredo, asking him to present a bill, on the very first day that Congress meets in January, to repeal this odious law. I hope that other congressional representatives join in this endeavor, for this issue rises above party.

Every American--Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, whatever--who cares about the right to speak freely on a political issue should demand that this law be repealed--and repealed immediately.

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.