Happy Birthday Bill of Rights!

[Richard G]

Today, December 15th, is the 212th anniversary of the adoption of our Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution as ratified this day, December 15, 1791. Many of the Founders objected to listing the Bill or Rights as "amendments" because it might be construed that such rights were subject to change. As noted by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 84: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

Read in context, the Bill of Rights is both an affirmation of innate individual rights (see Jefferson's words under "The Foundation") and an explication of constraints upon the central government. But in the last four decades, an activist judiciary has grossly devitalized the Bill of Rights. For example, the Leftjudiciary has "interpreted" the First Amendment as placing all manner of constraint upon the exercise of religion while asserting that all manner of expression constitutes "speech." And the courts are constantly dissolving the strength of the Second Amendment, which James Madison's appointee, Justice Joseph Story, declared "...the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers...."

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Thus begins our Bill of Rights. George Mason, known as "The Father of the Bill of Rights," wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights from which Jefferson drew to write the Declaration of Independence. Mason was one of fifty-five who wrote the U.S. Constitution, but was also one of sixteen who refused to sign it because it did not abolish slavery and did not limit the power of the Federal Government. He worked with Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams to prevent the Constitution from being ratified, as the abuses of King George's concentrated power were still fresh. It was through Mason's insistence that in the first session of Congress ten limitations were put on the Federal Government. George Mason had suggested the wording of the First Amendment be: "All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others."

However, as Thomas Jefferson warned repeatedly, the greatest risk that those limitation on the central government would be eroded, was an unbridled judiciary: "Over the Judiciary department, the Constitution [has] deprived [the people] of their control. ... The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will. ... It is a misnomer to call a government republican in which a branch of the supreme power [the judiciary] is independent of the nation. ... The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

Memo to you despots in the Leftjudiciary: Tomorrow is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party (December 16, 1773). Take note!

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Richard G

Memo to you despots in the Leftjudiciary: Tomorrow is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party (December 16, 1773). Take note!

I don't think a harbour full of tea is going to affect the leftjudiciary. Just my opinion, of course.

[shanek]

Well, considering that the Supreme Court just ruled that candidates challenging incumbents and those that support them don't have the same rights as big media corporations or incumbent politicians, I really have to wonder how much of the Bill of Rights still applies. :mad:

[Gem]

On January 20, 2001, President George W. Bush signed an executive order establishing the United States Department of Faith (DOF). Headed by Mr. Bush's and God's favorite church, Landover Baptist Church, the DOF is entrusted with overseeing disbursement of millions of taxpayer dollars to religious charities. The DOF does not discriminate against any faith, making funds available to both Baptist churches and other churches or organizations that recognize Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. (Read the DOF Mission Statement)

http://www.whitehouse.org/dof/index.asp

Well, it's an executive order, not a law by Congress.

This angers me a lot:

The DOF does not discriminate against any faith, making funds available to both Baptist churches and other churches or organizations that recognize Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Check out also some favorites on the link. It's just unbeleivable what they say. I'm starting to beleive that the 2nd admendment is neccessary against these people.

But what I find hilarious is this: "How Does Our Christian Nation Benefit by Defending Hell-Bound Jews?"

It's a bit below.

And what I find scary is that it was passed BEFORE 9/11. Why not celebrate it by READING it, for starters?

Gem

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Richard G

Memo to you despots in the Leftjudiciary: Tomorrow is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party (December 16, 1773). Take note!

do you understand the importance of the separation of powers? I know you want to control everything but your system of government prefers checks and ballances.

[Gem]

Ok, check this baby out:

http://www.whitehouse.org/DOF/salvation-act.asp

Salvation Legislation Bill

The SS Act will allow Congress to monitor, catalogue, and track all Real Americans who fail to attend churches

E-mail this page to a fellow Republican

When's the New Boston Tea Party?! I'm going to start recruiting.

Gem

[Gem]

Fellow up: My bad, it's a humor link.

*looks ashamed*

Gem

[Some Friggin Guy]

Gem, I will admit, it looks official, but the white house has a .gov address, just so you know in the future.

No need to be ashamed, though.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I don't think a harbour full of tea is going to affect the leftjudiciary. Just my opinion, of course.

Nope. Most likely it would just make the harbor smell a bit better. Plus, if I run out of tea there is always mineral water.

They don't really worry about people that misinterpret present law and take sentences from famous old dead people and present them as somehow rebutting the strawman they created. Not really anything that upsets them as I understand. Except perhaps for Jusitice Thomas maybe.

[Larspeart]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, considering that the Supreme Court just ruled that candidates challenging incumbents and those that support them don't have the same rights as big media corporations or incumbent politicians, I really have to wonder how much of the Bill of Rights still applies. :mad:

Yup. Totally agree. That ruling is a travesty.

:(

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, considering that the Supreme Court just ruled that candidates challenging incumbents and those that support them don't have the same rights as big media corporations or incumbent politicians, I really have to wonder how much of the Bill of Rights still applies. :mad:

I seem to have misplaced my Libertarian to English translation dictionary. Could you translate this, then, please?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Nope. Most likely it would just make the harbor smell a bit better. Plus, if I run out of tea there is always mineral water.

They don't really worry about people that misinterpret present law and take sentences from famous old dead people and present them as somehow rebutting the strawman they created. Not really anything that upsets them as I understand. Except perhaps for Jusitice Thomas maybe.

Have you had a close look at his first post? I have and it seems, to me, that techinically he hasn't made a point at all. What's he asking for? He implies much, but specifies little. This is shaping up to be another DickyG hit-and-run thread.

Unless, of course, shanek comes to his rescue and blows this out to another 5000 post thread on how Libertarianists are always right.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I seem to have misplaced my Libertarian to English translation dictionary. Could you translate this, then, please?

The Supreme Court recently ruled (5-4, as usual) to uphold even the most controversial elements of McCain-Feingold. The freedom of the press arguments were rejected. You and I don't have free press rights; only NBC, Knight-Ridder, etc.

Also, if you're a wealthy individual, you can spend $10,000 on a TV ad and say pretty much whatever you want. But if 100 people get together and put in $100 apiece, they can't do the same thing.

Also, incumbent politicians can say whatever they want 30 days before an election (the most crucial time for campaigning) and the press can quote them all day long; but challengers cannot purchase air time to refute their statements.

This gave incumbent politicians the power to financially cripple and quash the speech of any competitors wanting to unseat them from power.

[Tony]

Originally posted by shanek


The Supreme Court recently ruled (5-4, as usual) to uphold even the most controversial elements of McCain-Feingold. The freedom of the press arguments were rejected. You and I don't have free press rights; only NBC, Knight-Ridder, etc.


Didnt you know that the 1st amendment is a collective right?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


The Supreme Court recently ruled (5-4, as usual) to uphold even the most controversial elements of McCain-Feingold. The freedom of the press arguments were rejected. You and I don't have free press rights; only NBC, Knight-Ridder, etc.

Ah. I thought that was what you meant, but I couldn't be sure.

Also, if you're a wealthy individual, you can spend $10,000 on a TV ad and say pretty much whatever you want. But if 100 people get together and put in $100 apiece, they can't do the same thing.

How far does 10 grand go on TV? Also, I have made an effort to read the bill and understand it, but it is much longer and more complicated than I would have guessed. Can you point out the section and article which says this? I am not trying to dispute what you are saying. I would just like to see this for myself.

Also, incumbent politicians can say whatever they want 30 days before an election (the most crucial time for campaigning) and the press can quote them all day long; but challengers cannot purchase air time to refute their statements.

If this is true, that is very worrisome indeed. Again, can you please point out the section/article in the bill where this is delineated?

[daenku32]

George Mason had suggested the wording of the First Amendment be: "All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others."

So what's your take on this Dick G?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Gem
Fellow up: My bad, it's a humor link.

*looks ashamed*

Gem

It would be a much better world if Landover Baptists were George W. Bush's favorite church.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
How far does 10 grand go on TV?

It'll get you a couple of 30-second spots on a local station. Even more on radio. But that was just an example.

Also, I have made an effort to read the bill and understand it, but it is much longer and more complicated than I would have guessed. Can you point out the section and article which says this? I am not trying to dispute what you are saying. I would just like to see this for myself.

I don't know the article and section number offhand. It's in the part where it talks about Political Committees.

If this is true, that is very worrisome indeed. Again, can you please point out the section/article in the bill where this is delineated?

Again, I don't know it offhand. There's a section that covers what expenditures are permitted, and there's a subsection of that which says what is prohibited. It's in there.

There's a lot of good information on this at: http://www.realcampaignreform.org/

[Luke T.]

shanek, do you expect me to believe we will see no ads for the Democratic Presidential candidate next October?

Not that that would be a bad thing... (edited to add for the humorously challenged that I am kidding!)

I'm afraid saying you don't know where the evidence to support your claim is is not acceptable when it is so extraordinary.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
shanek, do you expect me to believe we will see no ads for the Democratic Presidential candidate next October?

Of course you will...funded with taxpayer money to boot. The restrictions don't cover what you can do with that money; only money that was donated from others.

And if you look around the URL I gave you you should be able to find all the info you need.

[shanek]

Here's some reports on it:

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=653

In a 5-4 ruling that shocked advocacy groups across the political spectrum, the Supreme Court endorsed key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Specifically, the court upheld a ban on "soft money" contributions from wealthy individuals, corporations and labor unions, as well the law's prohibition on running certain political advertisements within close proximity to an election.

But Libertarians point out that McCain-Feingold was nothing more than an incumbent protection act in the first place -- and that the court's ruling was tantamount to outlawing political competition.

"Running for office and communicating a message aren't free," Neale said. "So making it illegal to raise money to buy political ads, and banning the ads during the period when they're most effective, is tantamount to outlawing the message itself. That's a crime against the First Amendment as well as an affront to the democratic process."

Incumbent politicians already enjoy powerful advantages, Neale pointed out, such as name recognition and the ability to attract news media, taxpayer-financed staffs and office space, and the franking privilege.

The so-called campaign finance reform act was merely an attempt to eliminate the only weapon that many challengers have: contributions freely given by individuals or groups that share their views, he noted.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20031211.shtml

The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling upholding virtually all of the McCain-Feingold law limiting contributions to political campaigns and proscribing television advertisements close to elections is a serious attack on the First Amendment.

The court bought the argument by the law's proponents that money is inherently corrupting and that by limiting the amount of money and the timing of speech, the entire political process will somehow become more virtuous. Like legislation designed to control guns rather than the people who use guns illegally, money cannot corrupt politicians. Politicians corrupt themselves.

This "terrible, terrible decision," to quote Hentoff, will further empower television. Under the guise of news reporting, liberal and conservative anchors and hosts can advance their personal political agenda by the guests they select to appear on their shows before an election. No advocacy group - unless it is a registered political action committee (PAC) - will be able to purchase an ad to tell another side of an issue or defend or criticize a political candidate. So, a Dan Rather, Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw can interview liberals who attack President Bush, providing little or no equal time for those who disagree, and a Sean Hannity can invite on his Fox program people who support Bush and ignore Bush opponents. This may empower TV anchors, but it doesn't empower voters.

Few individuals can afford the cost of television time, which is the best medium for reaching the greatest number of people. In the recent past, individuals have chosen to align themselves with groups that represent their political viewpoints. Whether it is the ACLU on the left or National Right to Life on the right, the freedom of individuals through these organizations will be limited.

http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=74

Campaign finance "reformers" have succeeded in sucking more life out of the First Amendment. What they ignore is that all speech is the expression of ideas. The distinctions made between political and nonpolitical speech are largely a fiction, as are those between hard and soft money to finance politics. The attack on certain kinds of speech, and certain kinds of spending to facilitate it, is an attack on all speech.



The media seem to love McCain-Feingold, but they'd better watch out because it could come back to haunt them. As sacred as even the reformers proclaim press freedom, all of their arguments in favor of McCain-Feingold could apply to political expression in newspapers. After all, aren't many newspapers now monopolies in their home towns, and aren't most owned by big corporations?



McCain and Feingold apparently did not learn the lessons of the 1974 campaign finance overhaul. Whenever you try to dam up the river of campaign money, the river simply takes an alternative route. Big-time donors like George Soros have not put away their checkbooks. The perceived problems McCain-Feingold was designed to solve result from the earlier "reforms," amply demonstrating The Law of Unintended Consequences.



One unintended consequence of McCain-Feingold may well be a growth in the number of newspapers, news networks, radio programs, and other media outlets financed by various political interests. An interest group or a politician would be prohibited from saying certain things in a newspaper advertisement that they could freely say on the op-ed page of that same newspaper, so political players would do everything they could to attain such exposure, even if it meant starting a brand new newspaper or network. The National Rifle Association is already in the market for a TV or radio station.

[Mr Manifesto]

Plagarism alert.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Thus began the Ten Amendments, or Bill of Rights, which were approved this day, September 25, 1789. George Mason, known as "The Father of the Bill of Rights," wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights from which Jefferson drew to write the Declaration of Independence. Mason was one of fifty-five who wrote the U.S. Constitution, but was also one of sixteen who refused to sign it because it did not abolish slavery and did not limit the power of the Federal Government. He worked with Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams to prevent the Constitution from being ratified, as the abuses of King George's concentrated power were still fresh. It was through Mason's insistence that in the first session of Congress ten limitations were put on the Federal Government. George Mason had suggested the wording of the First Amendment be: "All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others."

Is also here (http://familyrightsassociation.com/news/archive/2003/sept/am/25.html), and I doubt that Richard G is Bill Federer.

Want to quote where you got that letter from, Dick?

[Mr Manifesto]

Who is Bill Kuenkler? (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/concealcarry/message/27425?source=1)

Not plagarism, obviously, just cracking up at how you bunnies get around.

[geni]

What I don't understand is that while my country has a state religion the US with its seperation of church and state has more problems with religion affecting what the state does.

[Mr Manifesto]

This (http://www.retrophisch.com/archives/2002/12/18/liberty_history.php) chunk was actually in the Federalist. I suspect much of Richard G's 'original' work was taken from there as well. But I'm not a subscriber. Perhaps other subscribers might help.

No, you aren't aiding and abetting a lefty, you are actually helping Richard G. You can get in a lot of doo-doo for copyright violations.

Dick: See how the guy on Retrophisch cites his sources? That's all you have to do!

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by geni
What I don't understand is that while my country has a state religion the US with its seperation of church and state has more problems with religion affecting what the state does.

I blame Henry VIII. Or the Church of the day for not giving him the damn divorce. One of the two.

[The Fool]

Its a surprise to you that RichardG is simply a reposting bot???

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by The Fool
Its a surprise to you that RichardG is simply a reposting bot???

It is my profound displeasure to admit that, yes, I've been duped. I thought it was all his. I thought he had a habit of using interpretations of data without quoting (like the time he listed a bunch of countries that immediately became dicatorships as soon as they relaxed the gun law... what happened to that thread, anyway, Dick?) but I thought on the whole he was posting his own work here.

I was lead to believe this, because he never quotes his sources.

His recent actions have lead me to question this. His performance on such sterling threads such as, "should guns be allowed on planes" demonstrate he can hardly string a sentence together.

It takes a while to realise when someone is a plagarist. I read Dick's tract thinking, "he's gone back to essayist Dick again" when it dawned on me- what if it was someone else's essay???

So I googled away. I suspect Dick got this from a chain e-mail, who knows, but with the focus in the forum being on plagrism and intellectual property, now might be a timely reminder to Dick to clean up his act.

[Luke T.]

shanek, your statement, "incumbent politicians can say whatever they want 30 days before an election (the most crucial time for campaigning) and the press can quote them all day long; but challengers cannot purchase air time to refute their statements" is a long way from a "prohibition on running certain political advertisements within close proximity to an election."

If you would please allow some of the stridency to leave your posts, I think you might find more agreement from others here.

I am not being facetious when I say I am having a hard time finding the exact place in the Bill that prohibits these "certain political advertisements." But then, I was speed reading it. Unless I have the wrong bill, here (http://www.nationalcenter.org/McCainFeingold.html) is a link to the actual bill. If anyone could point out the relevant sections, I would appreciate it.

The only section that relates to campaign advertising is Section 308 as far as I can see, and it doesn't seem to prohibit anyone from advertising. It just requires they identify themselves somewhere in the ad.


If a broadcast or cablecast communication described in paragraph (1) is broadcast or cablecast by means of television, the
communication shall include, in addition to the audio statement
under paragraph (1), a written statement that--

(A) appears at the end of the communication in a clearly
readable manner with a reasonable degree of color contrast
between the background and the printed statement, for a period
of at least 4 seconds; and

(B) is accompanied by a clearly identifiable photographic or
similar image of the candidate.

(e) Any broadcast or cablecast communication described in
paragraph (3) of subsection (a) shall include, in addition to the
requirements of that paragraph, in a clearly spoken manner, the
following statement: ` [Bold->] XXXXXXXX [<-Bold] is responsible
for the content of this advertisement.' (with the blank to be
filled in with the name of the political committee or other person
paying for the communication and the name of any connected
organization of the payor).

I can't find anything about 30 days prior to an election. That doesn't mean its there. So help me out here, shanek. Why quote other people's opinions when we have the actual bill?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek
Here's some reports on it:

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=653


From that link you quoted:


Incumbent politicians already enjoy powerful advantages, Neale pointed out, such as name recognition and the ability to attract news media, taxpayer-financed staffs and office space, and the franking privilege.

From the McCain-Feingold bill which I linked in my last post. Article 503:


SEC. 503. LIMIT ON CONGRESSIONAL USE OF THE FRANKING PRIVILEGE.

Section 3210(a)(6) of title 39, United States Code, is amended by
striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:

(A) A Member of Congress shall not mail any mass mailing
as franked mail during a year in which there will be an
election for the seat held by the Member during the period
between January 1 of that year and the date of the general
election for that Office, unless the Member has made a
public announcement that the Member will not be a candidate
for reelection to that year or for election to any other
Federal office.

I hope the Libertarian Party isn't being disingenous or selective here, shanek.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


The Supreme Court recently ruled (5-4, as usual) to uphold even the most controversial elements of McCain-Feingold.

No wonder I am confused. I believe you should be talking about the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. (http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/fec/bpcmpnrfrmact2002.pdf)

What the heck is going on here? Even the official Libertarian Party press release (http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=653) you linked got it wrong. Not exactly stellar reporting...


In a 5-4 ruling that shocked advocacy groups across the political spectrum, the Supreme Court endorsed key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

Now we have a starting place.

[Luke T.]

I believe this is the relevant section regarding the 30 day and 10,000 dollar rules. Makes your head spin. Shall we analyze it?


SEC. 201. DISCLOSURE OF ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434), as amended by section 103, is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘‘(f) DISCLOSURE OF ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.—
‘‘(1) STATEMENT REQUIRED.—Every person who makes a
disbursement for the direct costs of producing and airing
electioneering communications in an aggregate amount in
excess of $10,000 during any calendar year shall, within 24
hours of each disclosure date, file with the Commission a statement
containing the information described in paragraph (2).
‘‘(2) CONTENTS OF STATEMENT.—Each statement required
to be filed under this subsection shall be made under penalty
of perjury and shall contain the following information:
‘‘(A) The identification of the person making the
disbursement, of any person sharing or exercising direction
or control over the activities of such person, and of the
custodian of the books and accounts of the person making
the disbursement.
‘‘(B) The principal place of business of the person
making the disbursement, if not an individual.
‘‘(C) The amount of each disbursement of more than
$200 during the period covered by the statement and the
identification of the person to whom the disbursement was
made.
‘‘(D) The elections to which the electioneering communications
pertain and the names (if known) of the candidates
identified or to be identified.
‘‘(E) If the disbursements were paid out of a segregated
bank account which consists of funds contributed solely
by individuals who are United States citizens or nationals
or lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined
in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20))) directly to this account for
electioneering communications, the names and addresses
of all contributors who contributed an aggregate amount
of $1,000 or more to that account during the period beginning
on the first day of the preceding calendar year and
H. R. 2356—9
ending on the disclosure date. Nothing in this subparagraph
is to be construed as a prohibition on the use of
funds in such a segregated account for a purpose other
than electioneering communications.
‘‘(F) If the disbursements were paid out of funds not
described in subparagraph (E), the names and addresses
of all contributors who contributed an aggregate amount
of $1,000 or more to the person making the disbursement
during the period beginning on the first day of the preceding
calendar year and ending on the disclosure date.
‘‘(3) ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATION.—For purposes of
this subsection—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—(i) The term ‘electioneering communication’
means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication
which—
‘‘(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal
office;
‘‘(II) is made within—
‘‘(aa) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff
election for the office sought by the candidate;
or
‘‘(bb) 30 days before a primary or preference
election, or a convention or caucus of a political
party that has authority to nominate a candidate,
for the office sought by the candidate; and
‘‘(III) in the case of a communication which refers
to a candidate for an office other than President or
Vice President, is targeted to the relevant electorate.
‘‘(ii) If clause (i) is held to be constitutionally insufficient
by final judicial decision to support the regulation
provided herein, then the term ‘electioneering communication’
means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication
which promotes or supports a candidate for that office,
or attacks or opposes a candidate for that office (regardless
of whether the communication expressly advocates a vote
for or against a candidate) and which also is suggestive
of no plausible meaning other than an exhortation to vote
for or against a specific candidate. Nothing in this subparagraph
shall be construed to affect the interpretation or
application of section 100.22(b) of title 11, Code of Federal
Regulations.
‘‘(B) EXCEPTIONS.—The term ‘electioneering communication’
does not include—
‘‘(i) a communication appearing in a news story,
commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities
of any broadcasting station, unless such facilities
are owned or controlled by any political party, political
committee, or candidate;
‘‘(ii) a communication which constitutes an
expenditure or an independent expenditure under this
Act;
‘‘(iii) a communication which constitutes a candidate
debate or forum conducted pursuant to regulations
adopted by the Commission, or which solely promotes
such a debate or forum and is made by or
on behalf of the person sponsoring the debate or forum;
or
H. R. 2356—10
‘‘(iv) any other communication exempted under
such regulations as the Commission may promulgate
(consistent with the requirements of this paragraph)
to ensure the appropriate implementation of this paragraph,
except that under any such regulation a communication
may not be exempted if it meets the requirements
of this paragraph and is described in section
301(20)(A)(iii).
‘‘(C) TARGETING TO RELEVANT ELECTORATE.—For purposes
of this paragraph, a communication which refers
to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office is ‘targeted
to the relevant electorate’ if the communication can
be received by 50,000 or more persons—
‘‘(i) in the district the candidate seeks to represent,
in the case of a candidate for Representative in, or
Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;
or
‘‘(ii) in the State the candidate seeks to represent,
in the case of a candidate for Senator.
‘‘(4) DISCLOSURE DATE.—For purposes of this subsection,
the term ‘disclosure date’ means—
‘‘(A) the first date during any calendar year by which
a person has made disbursements for the direct costs of
producing or airing electioneering communications aggregating
in excess of $10,000; and
‘‘(B) any other date during such calendar year by which
a person has made disbursements for the direct costs of
producing or airing electioneering communications aggregating
in excess of $10,000 since the most recent disclosure
date for such calendar year.
‘‘(5) CONTRACTS TO DISBURSE.—For purposes of this subsection,
a person shall be treated as having made a disbursement
if the person has executed a contract to make the
disbursement.

[American]

Who is Bill?

[Luke T.]

It seems to be a common mistake to call the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act the McCain-Feingold bill.

For example, a Brooklyn Law School professor says: (http://www.brooklaw.edu/news/news.php)


On December 10, the Supreme Court upheld the most significant elements of the controversial Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill.

However, if you look at the links I provided for each, it is a ridiculous thing to do. They aren't even close to the same thing.
I would bet that is self-promtional activity on the parts of McCain and Feingold. :D

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by American
Who is Bill?

I'm just a bill,
Yes, I'm only a bill,
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city,
It's a long, long wait
While I'm sitting in committee,
But I know I'll be a law someday...
At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I'm still just a bill.

Do I really need to source this one Mr. Manifesto? :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
shanek, your statement, "incumbent politicians can say whatever they want 30 days before an election (the most crucial time for campaigning) and the press can quote them all day long; but challengers cannot purchase air time to refute their statements" is a long way from a "prohibition on running certain political advertisements within close proximity to an election."

No, it isn't. It still means the incumbent politicians and parties get essentially free air time while the challengers are left with no way to get their message out. Whomever the Libertarian candidate for President is will have to forego television advertisements while both Bush and the Democratic candidate get to fill the airwaves.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
No wonder I am confused. I believe you should be talking about the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. (http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/fec/bpcmpnrfrmact2002.pdf)

Uh, the BCRA is McCain-Feingold. They were the two major sponsors of the bill.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


No, it isn't. It still means the incumbent politicians and parties get essentially free air time while the challengers are left with no way to get their message out. Whomever the Libertarian candidate for President is will have to forego television advertisements while both Bush and the Democratic candidate get to fill the airwaves.

shanek, I was hoping you hadn't had a chance to respond yet. I was going to go back to an early post far up the page and edit in a note to you to read everything I posted after that before responding, and then I was going to post this:

I am almost with you on this, believe it or not. So I hope we can talk through this sensibly. I hope you are not responding to anything else while I write this. :D

Now, as for not being able to get the message out, I will have to disagree. The message can still be gotten out, but certain hoops have to be jumped through first.

What I think has happened is that people have gotten sick of the perception that candidates are able to buy elections. All you need is a boatload of cash.

So a bunch of lawyers, McCain and Feingold among them, decided to write a confabulated Bill to prevent this from happening. They wrote it in total lawyer fashion in an attempt to anticipate every loophole and close it.

I don't care how smart these guys were though, other lawyers are going to find a way around this crap.

I do not believe this will change the number of campaign ads we see on TV one scintilla.

With that said, I agree that in their passion to avoid the buying of elections, the forgers of this bag of hammers trampled on free speech, and it will result in more corruption. It is like the tax laws. You make enough of 'em, and people who ordinarily wouldn't think of evading them, will.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


Uh, the BCRA is McCain-Feingold. They were the two major sponsors of the bill.

Somewhere between 1997 when McCain and Feingold sponsored a bill and 2002 when the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Bill was passed, a whole lot of other hands were involved. McCain and Feingold deserve credit (ignominy?) for getting the ball rolling, but the final version isn't even recognizable from the original.

For instance, the section on franking is gone. At least, I can't find it, can you? I wonder what McCain's personal feelings are on that. Betcha he didn't take it out. Certain other incumbents must have.

[Luke T.]

shanek, I am curious why you believe this bill hurts Libertarian candidates more than Democratic candidates.

edited to add: I am two hours past my bedtime. I will have to read your response tomorrow.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
shanek, I was hoping you hadn't had a chance to respond yet. I was going to go back to an early post far up the page and edit in a note to you to read everything I posted after that before responding, and then I was going to post this:

Reading the posts of yours above this, I can see that.

Now, as for not being able to get the message out, I will have to disagree. The message can still be gotten out, but certain hoops have to be jumped through first.

Why should we have to do that? Why should we have to go begging to mommy government, and using all the resources and time that requires, to do something that's supposed to be our right to begin with?

What I think has happened is that people have gotten sick of the perception that candidates are able to buy elections. All you need is a boatload of cash.

Oh, if only that were true...

I do not believe this will change the number of campaign ads we see on TV one scintilla.

For the two major parties, you are correct. But minor parties like the LP hardly have the dough to pay lawyers to pour through looking for these loopholes and prepare for the defense. We have to spend enough money going to court to fight the results of rigged elections.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Somewhere between 1997 when McCain and Feingold sponsored a bill and 2002 when the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Bill was passed, a whole lot of other hands were involved. McCain and Feingold deserve credit (ignominy?) for getting the ball rolling, but the final version isn't even recognizable from the original.

True, but even the lawyers in the Supreme Court hearing kept referring to it as McCain-Feingold. So has the press.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
shanek, I am curious why you believe this bill hurts Libertarian candidates more than Democratic candidates.

Again: the restrictions on fund raising do not apply to the millions of dollars the Republicans and Democrats pilfer from the taxpayers every single election.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek

Why should we have to do that? Why should we have to go begging to mommy government, and using all the resources and time that requires, to do something that's supposed to be our right to begin with?

I don't know that access to TV broadcasting is a "right."

Oh, if only that were true...

But isn't it true that you can buy an election? McCain thinks so. Bush got all the money and took the steam out of McCain's campaign.

For the two major parties, you are correct. But minor parties like the LP hardly have the dough to pay lawyers to pour through looking for these loopholes and prepare for the defense. We have to spend enough money going to court to fight the results of rigged elections.

I'll save the Libertarians some money and tell you right now where the loophole is. :D

PACs. The only restriction on them is that the PAC has to provide the names of its members upon request. Supposedly this is to prevent fraudulence. Making up phony names. But there are some privacy issues which concern me more than the freedom of speech issue.

Okay, so now the Libertarians can take the money I just saved them and get some ads on TV. :)

[Luke T.]

I've been reading over this bill out of my own curiousity. It's a fascinating document. You can almost hear the conversations that must have taken place as the writers tried to figure out every trick somebody might try to pull to get money into a candidate's coffers and then figuring out a way to stop it.

Exercise in futility.

[Luke T.]

shanek, you know what the Libertarians should do? Run some ads, starting now, showing the text of the original McCain-Feingold bill that I linked earlier in this topic. Point out the part about franking restrictions. Then show how that part was removed from the final version.

Double check to be sure I am correct on this. :D

If I am right, then you can seriously embarrass the Congress that wrote it.

This is an undeniable unfair advantage given to incumbents. Most Americans probably aren't even aware it exists.

"Congress wants you to believe they are leveling the playing field for candidates...."

Can you see it? :D

[Luke T.]

"The next time you receive a newsletter from your Congressman, ask yourself, 'Why are my tax dollars paying for this when it gives an unfair advantage to the officeholders over their opponents? How does this level the playing field?'"

Bang! Zoom!