Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center: newswire/14671

Comment on this article \| View comments \| Email this Article
Commentary :: Elections & Legislation
Limitation On Political Free Speech	Current rating: 0
by Ed Email: crazyhawk22 (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified!)	16 Dec 2003 Modified: 01:22:57 PM
Article written by Joseph Farah offers the analysis that political free speech will be suppressed by new legislation. Legislation will affect all media outlets including IMC sites next Sept 2, 2004.
This article is also available thru drudgereport.com. I would think everyone who posts their political opinions to this IMC site or has expressed their political opinion in a letter written to a newspaper or has expressed their political opinion over the radio airwaves or some other form of media should be concerned about the implications of this legislation.---ED *********************************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free speech dead in America -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: December 16, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com Most people's eyes glaze over when they hear or read terms like "campaign-finance reform." It's understandable. Many Americans cannot see how this kind of legislation impacts their lives. And, accordingly, there was little outrage when Congress passed the "McCain-Feingold" campaign-finance bill. Again, there was little outrage when President Bush signed the legislation. Then, last week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold the law's ban on so-called "soft money," or unlimited donations to political parties, as well as new restrictions on political advertising 60 days before elections. But this legislation, shockingly upheld by the court, represents one of the biggest attacks on First Amendment freedoms in America's history. It's no exaggeration to say Congress, the president and the court killed freedom of speech with their actions. Why? Because if Congress does indeed have the power to regulate political speech in America – in stark contradiction to what the First Amendment clearly states – then it is only a matter of time and opportunity before the government takes the next step. It is only a matter of time and opportunity before the government takes yet another "privilege" of expression away from the American people, who clearly have no inalienable rights in this area, despite what the Constitution says. It is only a matter of time before Congress eviscerates other provisions of the First Amendment – once considered sacrosanct, even by judicial activists who had no use for the rest of the Constitution. Let's say I, Joe American, want to make my voice heard in opposition to a congressional candidate in my district 59 days before the election. I believe there is a compelling reason to reject a particular candidate – and no one in the media is willing to examine my pet cause. Even the opposing candidate is missing the boat – either through ignorance or oversight. So, I decide to take out a small ad in my local newspaper – on my own initiative and with my own meager financial resources. Do you know this wholesome, perfectly appropriate, civic-minded action is illegal under the new law? I kid you not. And this is just the beginning. The full ramifications of this legislation are not even known yet. There will be people prosecuted and fined for speaking their minds publicly – people with no ties to any candidates or parties, just regular people who want to participate in the political system. Let me give you another real-life example. Have you ever thought about using your website to campaign for your favorite candidate? Or, perhaps, to urge the defeat of that congressional representative who has been ignoring your letters? Better think again. A couple years ago, Leo Smith of Connecticut decided he would use his business website to do just that – urge the defeat of his congressional representative, Republican Nancy L. Johnson. He decided to add a new section to an already existing Internet site to advance the cause of her challenger, Charlotte Koskoff. Just a few days later, Smith was contacted by Koskoff's campaign manager. No, it wasn't a call to thank him for his efforts. It was a warning of legal problems he might encounter because of campaign-finance regulations. Smith was told by the Federal Election Commission that he was in violation of federal law because he had spent more than $250 in expressing his political views without disclosing his identity and filing the required reports. Never mind that Smith didn't spend anything (except time) creating the new page. The FEC, however, insisted on an advisory opinion that the value of the computer hardware and software is factored into its calculations. If a computer used to express political viewpoints cost more than $250, the FEC said, its owner would have to meet the filing requirements. Again, this is before the latest heinous legislation. It's only going to get worse now. The answer to those who say we need stricter limits on campaign spending is that we need no limits. Any limits are limits on speech. You cannot divide money and speech. Money buys speech. Effective communications requires money. It's an illusion to pretend otherwise. We don't need more government control – whether it is through taxpayer-financed elections or limits on political speech. Either solution spells less freedom. What we need to do, as much as possible, is to get government's nose out of the election process – and, for that matter, the rest of our public and private affairs.

Comments

Re: Limitation On Political Free Speech
by Paul R. paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified)	Current rating: 5 16 Dec 2003
What gets left out of all this bellowing about how campaign finance law infringes so-called "free speech" is that I am free to express myself in any fashion during the pre-election period, EXCEPT through advertising. Despite the example of Leo Smith cited in this article, you can go nuts expresing your opinion on your website. The Leo Smith example is a rhetorical ploy of using the most extreme example (which may have been resolved -- we don't know) to stand-in for what will really happen. If you have a radio show, you can say what you want under McCain-Feingold. If you have a newspaper or are a columnist, you can write what you want. You simply can't take out advertisements in someone else's newspaper or radio show. That's all -- nothing more, nothing less. The corporate media and other moneyed interests have waged a 50-year campaign to push the equation of money and speech -- that is, this faction wants the effect of the first amendment to be "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of money." The upholding of McCain-Feingold is one necessary hit against that initiative. Advertising is not a right. And while this law may inhibit some small organizations and groups that use advertising to push for a candidate, these groups are far outspent by much bigger, moneyed interests, and therefore drowned out. Take advertising out of the equation, and the playing field is leveled.