Rep. Blunt Seeks Repeal of McCain-Feingold-Campaign Finance Reform Thread - Day 63

NewsMax ^ | 2/13/04 | Wes Vernon

[Valin]

Rep. Blunt Seeks Repeal of McCain-Feingold's Attack on Freedom of Speech

WASHINGTON – The third-ranking member of the House Republican leadership is a co-sponsor of a bill to repeal the anti-free-speech sections of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform” law.
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., has signed on to the measure, just introduced, to “restore Americans’ First Amendment rights,” in the words of the prime sponsor of the repeal, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md.

The very fact that a major player in the House GOP leadership would affix his name to Bartlett’s bill sends an unmistakable signal to the rank-and-file Republican lawmakers, i.e., let’s get rid of this turkey now before it does us in.
And there are troubling signs for the Republicans that the so-called “finance reform” measure is realizing their worst nightmares.
As Richard Lessner, a top leader of American Conservative Union, noted at Bartlett’s news conference Thursday afternoon on Capitol Hill, billionaire financier George Soros has already vowed to spend down his entire fortune, if necessary, just to bring down President Bush.

The stated purpose of McCain-Feingold, to “get money out of politics,” is “already not working.” He added MoveOn.org, formed in 1998 to save Bill Clinton from impeachment, was now spending $8 million of Soros’ money on ads in the election cycle, all thanks to the new “reform” law.
Bartlett’s bill would do away with the ban on advertisements by ordinary citizens and their groups outside the PACs, a ban that applies if the ad supports or opposes or even mentions the name of a candidate 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.
Before even getting to the starting gate of Thursday’s formal introduction, the Marylander had secured the backing of such veteran lawmakers as Reps. C.L. “Butch” Otter, R-Idaho, John Doolittle, R-Calif., and Phil Crane, R-Ill.
Bartlett says some Democrats are also considering support for his bill. He named ultra-liberal Barney Frank, D-Mass., as one who had expressed interest.

Even ACLU Agrees

Indeed, though Congressman Bartlett was surrounded by conservative supporters at his news conference, his bill received strong backing from American Civil Liberties Union, which frequently champions causes on the left.
ACLU’s Marvin Johnson called McCain-Feingold an “incumbent protection act” because the incumbents who wrote and voted for it normally have much higher name recognition in their re-election campaigns than do their challengers. For that reason, it is the challengers who might otherwise benefit from citizen groups' support during the 30 or 60 days leading up to an election.
Johnson ridiculed McCain-Feingold’s stated purpose of “getting money out of politics” as comparable to “burning down a house to roast a pig.”

Censorship and 'Corruption'

“Far from “stamping out corruption,” the ACLU official argued, McCain-Feingold imposed censorship, “the sidekick of corruption.”
Congressman Bartlett said under McCain-Feingold, candidates now have free rein to “wait until the [30-60 day] blackout period to say whatever they want without worrying about negative feedback.”
Charles H. Cunningham, National Rifle Association's director of federal affairs, said his group’s 4 million members had a First Amendment (free speech) right to protect their Second Amendment (gun rights) freedoms.
NRA’s Wayne LaPierre says his group is exploring ways to get around the anti-free-speech effects of McCain-Feingold by buying its own radio and TV stations (the media conglomerates are excluded from McCain-Feingold's restraints) or by building an offshore broadcast facility.
One of Bartlett’s co-sponsors, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, says it is an outrage to give so much power to the media moguls. He said this was a lesson that we cannot depend on unelected judges to protect our freedoms.

It is believed that many who voted for McCain-Feingold — and President Bush, who signed it as reluctantly as Bill Clinton did welfare reform — did so just to get the issue off the table, believing that surely the courts would never approve such a perversion of the Founding Fathers’ intent.

[Valin]

YES!!!

[Valin]

Yesterdays thread
Bartlett's bill
Washington Times 2/11/04 Greg Pierce
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1076758/posts?page=1


If you are interested in posting some of these threads please let me know
It's fun, it's easy, it build strong bodies 12 way, it gets rid of those "unsightly" stains, And is guaranteed to improve your tan.
What a prefect way to say "I Love You" to that special someone.

[Valin]

Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob
Special to FreeRepublic | 17 December 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

This is nothing like the usual whine by someone whose post was pulled. JimRob pulled my previous thread for a good reason. "If direct fund-raising were permitted on FR, it would soon be wall-to-wall fund-raising."

So, let's start again correctly. This is about civil disobedience to support the First Amendment and challenge the TERRIBLE CFR decision of the Supreme Court to uphold a terrible law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.

All who are interested in an in-your-face challenge to the 30- and 60-day ad ban in the Campaign Finance "Reform" Act, please join in. The pattern is this: I'm looking for at least 1,000 people to help the effort. I will run the ad, and risk fines or jail time to make it work -- AND get national support.

But there should be NO mentions of money in this thread, and not in Freepmail either. This is JimRob's electronic home, and we should all abide his concerns.

Put your comments here. Click on the link above, and send me your e-mail addresses. I will get back to you by regular e-mail with the practical details.

This CAN be done. This SHOULD be done. But it MUST be done in accord with JimRob's guidelines.


Fair enough?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1042394/posts



Update
I've already tested the idea of my in-your-face challenge ads, first in the print media and then deliberately illegal on TV, with certain editors I have a long relationship with. I could trust these two gentlemen, one in the print media and the other in the broadcast media, with a "heads up" on what I am planning. Both said they wanted to know, in advance, when I am about to do this.

The bottom line is clear. If I am willing to put my neck on the line, with the possibilities of a fine and jail time, THAT effort will put CFR back on the front page in all media. And that is part of the point. There's not much value of going in-your-face against the enemies of the First Amendment unless the press takes up the story and spreads the word. It is now clear they will do exactly that.

Update 2
QUICK PROGRESS REPORT, ANSWERING A SUPPORTER'S QUESTION:
We have about 15% of the needed 1,000 sign-ups.

Spread the word, direct folks to the front page link on my website.

Google-bomb the phrase "anti-CFR" directing readers to that page and link. (We're already #2 and #4 on Google.)

Target date is now August, since the NC primary looks to be put back to September. (Remember, the ad isn't illegal until the 29th day before the election.)


Cordially,

John / Billybob


Note if you are interested in more on this please contact Valin or Congressman Billybob

[Valin]

One of Bartlett’s co-sponsors, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, says it is an outrage to give so much power to the media moguls. He said this was a lesson that we cannot depend on unelected judges to protect our freedoms.

Here you go cowboy!

[King Black Robe]

Now you're talking! And there had better be some action to go along with this talk.

[King Black Robe]

Ron Paul needs to hold backbone development classes for Republican members of Congress. There's a big need, so I think he could be very profitable.

[DustyMoment]

It's a start but I'll hold off on the celebration until these liars actually get it all the way through the Congress and signed by Bush.

I don't trust any of them to actually stand up and support the full restoration of our 1st Amendment rights.

[steve50]

It's a start but I'll hold off on the celebration until these liars actually get it all the way through the Congress and signed by Bush.

Wouldn't surprise me too much to see the veto pen dusted off for it.

[Valin]

Let em know! Heck I'm even going to let my guy know.
Martin OLAV Sabo (think David Bonior)

[Valin]

Why do you say that.

[steve50]

Because the powers behind both parties wanted the %+*& thing all along, and a man who promised to veto the bill to start with folded like a cheap accordian on his campaign promise.

[Valin]

I wouldn't say that. What happened is BOTH Congress and the president got cute and to smart for their own good. They ALL knew that they could sign off on this safely because the USSC would kill it. Well guess what they didn't.
I am of the belief (with nothing really to back it up) that part of the reason that the USSC ok'd this abortion of a bill was to send a message to the other two branches. Stop sending us this kind of crap, we're tired of cleaning up your messes.

[snippy_about_it]

BUMP!!!!

[steve50]

What happened is BOTH Congress and the president got cute and to smart for their own good.

I don't expect a man to give me his word and then get "cute" with it.

[The_Eaglet]

One of Bartlett’s co-sponsors, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, says it is an outrage to give so much power to the media moguls. He said this was a lesson that we cannot depend on unelected judges to protect our freedoms.

Thank you! WTMBTTT!

[countrydummy]

For once I kinda agree with ya! **wink**

May be to little to late though! Or next week we finally bring OBL! I expect it, and I expect to see WMD found! And I expect to see something happen that GW "will be forced" to pull back on his "guest-worker" program.........I mean something because such a person, blows something up! Screttching halt to that one!

Maybe I have been up to long, maybe I am praying to hard, (I do not want to see any one warmed!), but I sure am praying that GW starts doing more to convince me he is the man I wanted in this office!

[Valin]

Then I would suggest you stop paying attention to politics, otherwise you are going to go through life being REALLY disappointed.

"On election day the promising season ends and the excuse making season begins."
Will Rodgers

[steve50]

Then I would suggest you stop paying attention to politics, otherwise you are going to go through life being REALLY disappointed.

I'd rather pay more attention and support candidates that govern on the principles they campaign on. Should be more effective at getting good governance in the long term than your method.

[Dawgreg]

Yep. As I lamented yesterday about Sheila Jackson Lee being from my area and how ashamed I was about it, well now I can brag about Ron Paul being from my area. See? For every bad one, there's a good one.

[Valin]

< off-topic>
I'm going to assume you are a 3rd party guy.

How successful have you been to date?
The problem I have with third parties(and god bless them) is they don't get their people elected. And that is the purpose of political parties. What they are is debating societies (and that's a good thing there is a REAL NEED FOR THEM) what they are not is political parties.
< /off-topic>