Is This Actually True?

[INRM]

Allegedly there's an emergency bill in either the House or the Senate that will prevent derogatory speech against an incumbent politician within 90-days of election, which additionally gives the incumbent the right to determine which speech is derogatory, and they plan to pass it in August.

Does anybody have any sources to confirm or refute this?

[Darat]

How did you get to hear about it?

[INRM]

Darat,

Via an e-mail forwarded from a friend. That's why I'm asking if there's valid evidence to suggest it is true or not. I did some searches on Bing, though I'm not sure the queries I put in were specific enough.

[Cleon]

Does anybody have any sources to confirm or refute this?


Yep (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/).

[Howie Felterbush]

Sounds unlikely.

I only say this because I work with a guy who knows every wacky thing the government is supposedly doing, and he didn't mention this in yesterday's hit parade. :)

Did you check Snopes?

[Cleon]

Darat,

Via an e-mail forwarded from a friend.

Oooh, that's always a source of reliable information. I'm worried now!

[Giggywig]

Since the first hit on google for "derogatory speech incumbent bill" is this thread, I'm going to to with "No." Oh, and I knew this was an INRM thread from the title alone.

[Beerina]

Perhaps it's just me, but I find the idea of a law being passed just before an election in hopes it will be obeyed, then get thrown out a few months later...after the election...to be completely believable as far as the ethics of politicians go.

This is nothing new, either. Hence the First Amendment.


Still, that was the essence of the law that was just thrown out, except that that one applied only to evil, greedy corporations. You know, the ones who provide us all jobs and the best economy on Earth in pursuit of their greed, owned and run by people around you.

[Cleon]

Still, that was the essence of the law that was just thrown out, except that that one applied only to evil, greedy corporations. You know, the ones who provide us all jobs and the best economy on Earth in pursuit of their greed, owned and run by people around you.

*sob* Won't somebody think of the corporations?!?!?!

[Spindrift]

Darat,

Via an e-mail forwarded from a friend. That's why I'm asking if there's valid evidence to suggest it is true or not. I did some searches on Bing, though I'm not sure the queries I put in were specific enough.

Care to share the e-mail with us?

[leftysergeant]

*sob* Won't somebody think of the corporations?!?!?!I am thinking of the corporations. (And grotesquely-shaped sex toys and Vics Vapo-rub [and sand paper.])

@INMR, If the e-mail doesn't include a bill number, consider it part of next year's garden soil.

[KingMerv00]

Does anybody have any sources to confirm or refute this?

If you can't do the former, you've effectively done the latter.

[Upchurch]

This is about the closest thing I could find to the language that INRM related:
Protecting pols by squelching speech (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/protecting_pols_by_squelching_speech_vfLuJGHbR1jzm A0lMLEAqI)

And it's not really the same thing.

This fails the 30 Second Google test. I don't see any reason to think it's actually true.

eta: found this:
Michigan Considers Law to Register Journalists (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/28/michigan-considers-law-license-journalists/)

EDITOR'S NOTE: An earlier version of this article stated incorrectly that the proposed bill would license reporters in Michigan. Sen. Patterson's proposed legislation calls for a voluntary system of registration with a government board.

[MikeMangum]

I think the email was probably talking about the DISCLOSE Act (http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/02/undisclosed-interests). Link is to a piece at Reason.com on the bill.
The anxiety and uncertainty created by the new rules would be compounded by the fact that they would take effect 30 days after the law is enacted, before the FEC would have time to issue regulations clarifying them. Opposing an amendment that would have postponed the effective date until January 1, Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) said he wants people to worry about a fine or prison sentence when they dare to speak ill of him.

"I hope it chills out all—not one side, all sides!" said Capuano. "I have no problem whatsoever keeping everybody out. If I could keep all outside entities out, I would."

Similarly, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), upon unveiling the bill, said "the deterrent effect should not be underestimated." For those who view nonpoliticians as meddlesome "outside entities" and criticism of incumbents as a crime to be deterred, the chilling effect of campaign finance laws is a feature, not a bug.

[DavidJames]

Allegedly there's an emergency bill in either the House or the Senate that will prevent derogatory speech against an incumbent politician within 90-days of election, which additionally gives the incumbent the right to determine which speech is derogatory, and they plan to pass it in August.

Does anybody have any sources to confirm or refute this?Here is some free advice. If you get an email with a claim, follow the source(s) for the claim, read them, and think for yourself. If then you still have questions, come here and ask.

If the claim does not include any sources, delete the email and for extra credit, reply to the bonehead who sent it telling them to stop spamming you with unsourced crap.

[Jekyll's Guest]

I got an email saying if I pass it on to 10 people I will be lucky in love.

Can anyone confirm or refute this?

[INRM]

Mike Magnum,

The Disclose Act
( http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/protecting_pols_by_squelching_speech_vfLuJGHbR1jzm A0lMLEAqI )

Seems most likely to be what he was describing...

[Horatius]

I got an email saying if I pass it on to 10 people I will be lucky in love.

Can anyone confirm or refute this?



If it's the right 10, one might fall in love with you out of pity.

[Madalch]

If it's the right 10, one might fall in love with you out of pity.
It'll probably take more than $10.

[MattusMaximus]

Via an e-mail forwarded from a friend. That's why I'm asking if there's valid evidence to suggest it is true or not. I did some searches on Bing, though I'm not sure the queries I put in were specific enough.

Yeah, and where did they get it? :rolleyes:

[Ladewig]

INMR, we've already talked about thread titles. "Is the true?" is a ridiculously useless title. Please describe what you want to discuss in the title.

[MikeMangum]

Did anyone actually want to discuss the pros and cons of the Incumbent Protection Act Disclose Act?

[Ladewig]

Did anyone actually want to discuss the pros and cons of the Incumbent Protection Act Disclose Act?

I suppose we should start with the actual text of the bill: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5175/text

It would be useful to remind some posters that bills are often reworded several times before they are voted on.

My only comment on this bill is that it contains no language similar to the claims in the OP.

[ponderingturtle]

Oooh, that's always a source of reliable information. I'm worried now!

Well this becomes highly dependent on the quality of ones friends.

[Jekyll's Guest]

If it's the right 10, one might fall in love with you out of pity.

That sounds like it involves work, to hell with that email!

It'll probably take more than $10.

There is nothing that can be done to me, or that I can do to someone else, that is worth more than $10.

[leftysergeant]

Did anyone actually want to discuss the pros and cons of the Incumbent Protection Act Disclose Act?

Yes. I want it to pass. You got a problem with that? Show me which section bothers you, and don't cite that stink tank that you linked to as a source. Use the table of contents from the BILL ITSELF.

[MikeMangum]

Here is the reference to the 90 day cutoff:
(2) APPLICABLE ELECTION PERIOD- For purposes of paragraph (1), the ‘applicable election period’ with respect to a communication means--


‘(A) in the case of a communication which refers to a candidate for the office of President or Vice President, the period--


‘(i) beginning with the date that is 120 days before the date of the first primary election, preference election, or nominating convention for nomination for the office of President which is held in any State; and


‘(ii) ending with the date of the general election for such office; or


‘(B) in the case of a communication which refers to a candidate for any other Federal office, the period--


‘(i) beginning with the date that is 90 days before the earliest of the primary election, preference election, or nominating convention with respect to the nomination for the office that the candidate is seeking; and CommentsClose


‘(ii) ending with the date of the general election for such office.

All of the constraints are explicitly not applied to established media corporations, but they DO apply to new media types like bloggers.

‘(4) EXCEPTION- The term ‘covered communication’ does not include--

‘(A) a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate; or

‘(B) a communication which constitutes a candidate debate or forum conducted pursuant to the regulations adopted by the Commission to carry out section 304(f)(3)(B)(iii), or which solely promotes such a debate or forum and is made by or on behalf of the person sponsoring the debate or forum.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/18/from-banning-books-to-banning
At a House Administration Committee hearing last Tuesday, Patton Boggs attorney William McGinley explained that the sloppy statutory language in the “DISCLOSE Act” would extend the FEC’s control over broadcast communications to all “covered communications,” including the blogosphere.

The DISCLOSE Act’s purpose, according to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Chris Van Hollen and other “reformers,” is simply to require disclosure of corporate and union political speech after the Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that the government could not ban political expenditures by companies, nonprofit groups, and labor unions.

The bill, however, would radically redefine how the FEC regulates political commentary. A section of the DISCLOSE Act would exempt traditional media outlets from coordination regulations, but the exemption does not include bloggers, only “a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication…”

...


The Times editorial board expressly advocates the election or defeat of candidates, acts of political speech worth thousands of dollars, yet it is exempted from similar regulations imposed on other companies wishing to speak out about candidates. The Times also writes unsigned, anonymous attacks, yet the DISCLOSE Act would compel the political speech and identification of nonprofit groups: a bulky, filmed disclaimer estimated to be 2-3 times longer than candidates’ disclaimers.

...

The Brennan Center for Justice’s Ciara Torres-Spelliscy accused us of “a blatant attempt to kick sand in the eyes of lawmakers,” and attempted to deny the plain meaning of the statutory language. Nonetheless, she admitted that “the FEC is most likely to stand by the 2006 Internet rules and only reach PAID political banner ads; not bloggers.”...

The response of “reformers” to serious questions about a bill imposing civil and criminal penalties for engaging in political speech would be shocking if it wasn’t so typical. Most likely isn’t good enough for people who want to speak out in politics without threat of jail time and hefty fines.

In addition, this bill changes allowances for "issue advocacy" ads. Basically, instead of being able to run an ad on a certain side of an issue, people will be barred from doing so if the candidates have clearly delineated positions on that issue because advocating for a specific position on an issue can be construed as advocating for or against one of the candidates:

(a) Revision of Definition- Subparagraph (A) of section 301(17) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(17)) is amended to read as follows:


‘(A) that, when taken as a whole, expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or is the functional equivalent of express advocacy because it can be interpreted by a reasonable person only as advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, taking into account whether the communication involved mentions a candidacy, a political party, or a challenger to a candidate, or takes a position on a candidate’s character, qualifications, or fitness for office; and’.

which would replace the following portion of the law:
(A) expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate; and

All of these bans on political speech would apply to corporations (except media corporations!), and additional bans on political speech would apply to any contractor working for the government. Considering that the same people pushing this bill want government to essentially take over the economy, it would dramatically reduce the ability of the public to engage in political speech. What's even more egregious is that these same restraints do not apply to unions or to recipients of government grants.

The bill would ban any pre-election political speech by a corporation with 20% or more foreign ownership, but that same ban would not apply to international unions nor to international NGOs.

[leftysergeant]

All of the constraints are explicitly not applied to established media corporations, but they DO apply to new media types like bloggers.

Source? Media corporations are the only corporations that are exempted by the constitution from any regulation other than the normal laws against libel. Non-issue.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/18/from-banning-books-to-banning

This source, plus a notarized affidavit from God Himself is acceptable sourcing for a political claim.

All of these bans on political speech would apply to corporations (except media corporations!), and additional bans on political speech would apply to any contractor working for the government. Considering that the same people pushing this bill want government to essentially take over the economy, it would dramatically reduce the ability of the public to engage in political speech.

EEEEEK! Government wants to shut up the big money operations that get corrupt corproate ass-kissers elected to corrupt regulatory agencies.

Trying to convince us that we have a common interest with BP and the Walton larvae? Aint gonna work.

The bill would ban any pre-election political speech by a corporation with 20% or more foreign ownership, but that same ban would not apply to international unions nor to international NGOs.

This is good. Corporations have no right to interfere with government. It leads to oiled beaches.

[dudalb]

And we have today's dose of Paranoia from INRM.


Actually, early in the Republic's history, something like this was tried'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_acts and failed miserably.
In fact, the Alien and Sedition acts are generally regarded as one of the worst pieces of legislation ever to pass, and are a blot on John Adams' record as President.
I doubt it will be tried again.

[GreNME]

And we have today's dose of Paranoia from INRM.

And MikeMangum has jumped on the woo bandwagon. One could argue Reason.com has also jumped on that wagon. I'd be surprised if WND hasn't also run this.

Actually, early in the Republic's history, something like this was tried'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_acts and failed miserably.
In fact, the Alien and Sedition acts are generally regarded as one of the worst pieces of legislation ever to pass, and are a blot on John Adams' record as President.
I doubt it will be tried again.

Yup.

[INRM]

MikeMagnum,

Does it prohibit speech between e-mails?

[Puppycow]

Didn't the Supreme Court recently settle this matter?

Citizens United I believe is the name of the case.

[epeos76]

Still, that was the essence of the law that was just thrown out, except that that one applied only to evil, greedy corporations. You know, the ones who provide us all jobs and the best economy on Earth in pursuit of their greed, owned and run by people around you.


Yes, now we know. Corporations are people, too, just exactly like you and me.

[KingMerv00]

Didn't the Supreme Court recently settle this matter?

Citizens United I believe is the name of the case.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission)?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Allegedly there's an emergency bill in either the House or the Senate that will prevent derogatory speech against an incumbent politician within 90-days of election, which additionally gives the incumbent the right to determine which speech is derogatory, and they plan to pass it in August.

Does anybody have any sources to confirm or refute this?

Yes it is true.

Where did you hear about this?

<queue menacing background music>

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I got an email saying if I pass it on to 10 people I will be lucky in love.

Can anyone confirm or refute this?

You got a purty mouth. :lovestruck:

[Beerina]

*sob* Won't somebody think of the corporations?!?!?!

Indeed. The ones who provide most jobs. And invent stuff so you can bitch about it online.

[Beerina]

Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) said he wants people to worry about a fine or prison sentence when they dare to speak ill of him.


Oh, come on! Quite posting crap from The Onion as if it's real! :mad:

[leftysergeant]

Indeed. The ones who provide most jobs. And invent stuff so you can bitch about it online.

Off topic. (Whadda sooooprize!) Do you ever miss an oportunity to throw a sucker punch in defense of the parasites?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Off topic. (Whadda sooooprize!) Do you ever miss an oportunity to throw a sucker punch in defense of the parasites?

No, but I once went to France to see the Paris sites.

[leftysergeant]

I think the email was probably talking about the DISCLOSE Act (http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/02/undisclosed-interests). Link is to a piece at Reason.com on the bill.

Confirmation from another source, like a signedaffidavit from God might lead me to accept a squawk from Reason. Genmerally, I disregard anything they have to say, since those jerks over there drag their right earlobes in the sand when they walk.