[Robert A Cook PE]

As mentioned, he will most likely only respond to GA emails, but the rest will be noted.

Contact your local representative and see if we can get this started.

[sirshackleton]

I know some folks in his office....great people.

[NonValueAdded]

Great idea. My congresscritter is a doc too. Maybe they can come up with a prescription for the McLame-Feingold flu.

[CounterCounterCulture]

BUMP

[Lazamataz]

His user-id should be his name.

This should be posted to Valin's daily CFR reform thread.

[Orangedog]

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.

Congress getting rid of that part of the law would be nice, but won't repair the serious and long-term damage done to the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is OK to restrict political speech based on nothing more than the calender. There is absolutely nothing stopping any congress in the future from expanding upon those restrictions.

[COURAGE]

Here we go again, way too many vanities.
Admin Moderator | December 12, 2003 | Admin Moderator


Posted on 12/12/2003 6:13:33 PM PST by Admin Moderator


There have been way too many vanities. We have asked numerous times to please limit your vanities to either the General Interest (Chat) forum or to post your one line vanities on an already existing thread. Guess what, didn't work. So, we will be deleting one line vanity threads, unless it is truly news as reported by a major media outlet. We will be deleting threads misposted to news that clearly belong in the General Interest (Chat) forum. Remember, this is a conservative news forum.

So, get ready, your vanity posts will be removed if you can not follow these simple guidelines.


Here's how to post an article in a forum other than the main news forum:


On the threads page (in any forum), on the right hand side, above the sidebars you will see a group of links that look something like this:

Campaign Central
General Interest (Chat)
News/Activism
Religion
RLC Liberty Caucus
The Smokey Backroom
VetsCoR


Select the appropriate forum prior to posting your article. In that forum, you can post your article the same way as the main news forum.


Again, any misposted articles will be pulled. If you like to see all the threads posted to Free Republic, John has made a Browse All option. All threads posted will be listed here and you will not miss out on any thread posted to Free Republic. And PLEASE use the actual titles that were given by the original author from that media source. It makes searching much more easier and prevents duplicates.


And as always, solicitations and fundraising from outside FR will not be allowed. Have a Merry Christmas.

[tutstar]

bttt

[Valin]

Bump and bookmark.
This is just the sort of thing I am talking about!

[aristeides]

Congressman Billybob has also been advocating legislation limiting to repealing the ad provision. He may be interested in your idea.

Since the Democrats have been expressing misgivings about CFR since the Supreme Court upheld (even if their misgivings spring from partisan considerations,) I do not think repeal of this one provision is a lost cause.

To judge by the cover article in the current Human Events< Speaker Hastert might be won over to the idea of such a repeal, which might mean the House leadership could make sure it got to the floor. But without some Democratic support, the Democrats could always filibuster it in the Senate.

[weegee]

I recommend pushing the constitutionality of the CFR laws. Congress shall make no laws abridging free speech and political speech is of the highest concern.

A law that is not stricken down on constitutional grounds sets a precedent for other laws that limit political speech. Using a law to repeal it and not the constitution is just setting congress up for a later repeal of "that" law. If it is not in the constitution then it needs to be added to the constitution (luckily that won't be necessary since it is already IN there).

[GulliverSwift]

That's a very good idea. Can someone bump the people with the ping lists?

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Done! Thanks, Robert. Hope our response (and Saddam's capture) encourages Rep. Gingrey (and other allied Republicans working in DC) to take on our domestic enemies.

[Congressman Billybob]

I replied to the pings, before I read the thread. I thought the Congressman was trying to cure the constitutional problem generally, rather than merely to cure the ad ban problem. I fully approve of his idea of removing the 30- and 60-day ad bans from the CFR law by act of Congress. Given that more than 100,000 groups of Americans on every part of the political spectrum have a potential stake in this issue, it can and should succeed.

My previous post on this thread concerns the large issue of correcting the constitutional problem. This Congressman is not attempting to do that, now, so belay my previous post.

John / Billybob

[Redbob]

It should be called
"The Free Speech Restoration Act of 2004"

Who'd go on record opposing that?
(Besides the likes of Chuckie Schumer, that is)

[Chad Fairbanks]

How about "NoOrrrrrdinaryPolitician" as a Screen Name? ;0)

[neverdem]

There is a Congressman Phil Gingrey from Georgia who was reported to be a lurker on FR. He was also reported to be considering the sponsorship of a bill that would repeal the absurd 30 and 60 day restrictions on free speech prior to elections. Here's a link to the thread that includes the URL of his Congressional office.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1040281/posts

He has an Email function that you may have to stumble about to find, but give Congressman Gingrey a holler.

[Smile-n-Win]

Way to go bump! It's easy to pass a law that "reduces the influence of money in politics" but it's difficult to oppose a law that affirms free speech.

[proud American in Canada]

"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.

[proud American in Canada]

"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."

Good thinking! Very good thinking... It would have far greater chances if we focused on this part, and really hammered home the First Amendment implications.

Thanks Robert! :)