Posted on 11/03/2005 4:43:26 PM PST by Whitehawk
House Defeats Bill on Political Blogs
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3, 2005 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) Online political expression should not be exempt from campaign finance law, the House decided Wednesday as lawmakers warned that the Internet has opened up a new loophole for uncontrolled spending on elections.
The House voted 225-182 for a bill that would have excluded blogs, e-mails and other Internet communications from regulation by the Federal Election Commission. That was 47 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed under a procedure that limited debate time and allowed no amendments.
The vote in effect clears the way for the FEC to move ahead with court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech and campaign spending on the Internet.
Well, the solution is simple. The blogs just need to have a greeting page featuring a picture of a crucifix in urine. That way, it's protected speech and they can even apply for NEA funding as well!
More details and analysis needed.
This is intolerable and unbearable. If we lose freedom of speech, the first amendment, we will have to excercise the second amendment. Welcome to the revolution.
Geez, and I thought getting banned for three days was traumatic... |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1514564/posts?page=88#88
Check it out ...
my guess is that whatever happens to pass will end up being overturned by the Supreme Court. Hell even the most recent version downed anything near this so there is some room for hope here....
Link appreciated.Not aware of this Bill.
So now the H.R. has its own little filibuster-type foolishness? This is the first I've ever heard of this rule. Too bad it was never invoked when these campaign-finance speech rationing laws were enacted in the first place.
No... I predict an upswing in the utilization of off-shore servers.
See also S.678 and Text of S.678.
Compare with Text of H.R. 1605, still pending.
Much ado about nothing
;-)
See also:Two-thirds Votes
Under the Constitution or by House rule, a two-thirds vote is expressly required in the House on:
- Amendment to the Constitution. U.S. Const. art. V; Manual Sec. 190.
- Passage of a bill over a veto. U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 7; Manual Sec. 104.
- Dispensing with Calendar Wednesday. Rule XV clause 7; Manual Sec. 900.
- Dispensing with the call of the Private Calendar. Rule XV clause 5; Manual Sec. 895.
- Same-day consideration of reports from the Committee on Rules. Rule XIII clause 6; Manual Sec. 857.
- Suspension of the rules. Rule XV clause 1; Manual Sec. 885.
- Expulsion of a Member. U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 5; Manual Sec. 62.
- Removal of political disabilities. U.S. Const. Amendment XIV Sec. 3; Manual Sec. 230.
A two-thirds vote means two-thirds of those voting, a quorum being present, and not two-thirds of the entire membership. Deschler-Brown Ch 30 Sec. 5. Such a vote requires an affirmative vote by two-thirds of those Members actually voting; Members who indicate only that they are ``present'' are not counted in determining the two-thirds figure. Deschler-Brown Ch 30 Sec. 5.2. This method of computing a two-thirds vote has been applied to votes on passage of a constitutional amendment (5 Hinds Sec. 7027; 8 Cannon Sec. 3503), to votes on the passage of a bill over the President's veto (7 Cannon Sec. 1111), and to votes on a motion to suspend the rules (Deschler-Brown Ch 30 Sec. 5.2).
A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House
Chapter 58 - Voting
Good thing the CFR bill wasn't passed by a GOP congress and signed by a GOP president - oh, wait...
Actually the Supreme Court refused to strike down the unconscionable restrictions on free speech in the McCain-Feingold bill.
Increasingly, their position is that pornography is protected but political speech is not.
There may be some hope they will reverse themselves if Alito is confirmed, however.
I would watch, but I wouldn't get my panties in a bunch quite yet.....
Amendment to the Constitution.
We can safely rule that out in this instance.
Passage of a bill over a veto.
Two words: President Bush. 'Nuff said.
Dispensing with Calendar Wednesday.
I'm not sure what that is, exactly. Does it mean that bills passed on a Wednesday have to have a two-thirds majority? Does that mean they can wait till Thursday or Friday and pass it with just a simple majority? I'm guessing that this isn't what was at issue here.
Dispensing with the call of the Private Calendar.
Sounds like a scheduling thing to me, not anything to do with a bill.
Same-day consideration of reports from the Committee on Rules.
Again, this Committe on Rules sounds like it has to do only with the internal affairs of the House, not with actual bills coming before it.
Suspension of the rules.
Well, this might be applicable, if they were attempting to pass the bill under suspension of the rules. But why wouldn't they just follow the rules, then, and pass it the right way?
Expulsion of a Member.
Sounds good to me. Anybody got a list going?
Removal of political disabilities.
This is the one about the disability of people to serve in government who'd adhered to the enemies of the U.S., right? That is just sooo 19th century.
BTW, you were right about this one being 2/3rds on account of suspension of the rules.
When do you plan to? When this is all fully upheld? There needs to be some heads rolling, starting with those who managed to engineer this situation such that it required 2/3 of the House to approve this bill. That's totally unacceptable.
Oh...
Well, I always appreciate a good fire drill anyway ;-)
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.