Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 12/22/2003 11:33:04 AM EDT
www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1045036/posts?page=1


Ron Paul - Campaign Finance Reform” Muzzles Political Dissent
House Web Site ^ | 12-22-2003 | Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

Posted on 12/22/2003 2:18:16 PM CST by jmc813

In a devastating blow to political speech, the Supreme Court recently upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill passed
by Congress last year. The legislation will do nothing to curb special interest power or reduce corruption in Washington, but it will make
it harder for average Americans to influence government. “Campaign finance reform” really means the bright-line standard of free
speech has been replaced by a murky set of regulations and restrictions that will muzzle political dissent and protect incumbents.
Justice Scalia correctly accuses the Court of supporting a law “That cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect:
the right to criticize the government…This is a sad day for freedom of speech.”

Two important points ignored by the Court should be made. First, although the new campaign rules clearly violate the First amendment,
they should be struck down primarily because Congress has no authority under Article I of the Constitution to regulate campaigns at all.
Article II authorizes only the regulation of elections, not campaigns, because our Founders knew Congress might pass campaign laws
that protect incumbency. This is precisely what McCain-Feingold represents: blatant incumbent protection sold to the public as noble
reform.

Second, freedom of the press applies equally to all Americans, not just the institutional, government-approved media. An unknown
internet blogger, a political party, a candidate, and the New York Times should all enjoy the same right to political speech. Yet
McCain-Feingold treats the mainstream press as some kind of sacred institution rather than the for-profit industry it is. Why should giant
media companies be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to promote candidates and issues, while an organization you support
cannot? The notion of creating a preferred class of media, with special First Amendment rights, is distinctly elitist and un-American.

Outrageously, the Court failed to strike down a provision of the campaign finance bill that virtually outlaws criticism of incumbent
politicians for 60 days before an election—exactly the time when most voters learn about candidates and issues. The ban essentially
prohibits any group from airing radio or television ads that cast politicians in a negative light during the critical final months of an
election. The ban even carries the possibility of criminal penalties, meaning the Court has endorsed criminalizing political dissent!
Incumbent politicians certainly will be the beneficiaries of the new ban, as they no longer have to suffer through ads that criticize their
performance.

Wealthy people will always seek to influence politicians, because government unfortunately plays a very big role in determining who gets
(and stays) rich in our country. Our federal government has become a taxing, spending, and regulating leviathan that virtually controls
the economy. Having rejected the notion of limited, constitutional government, we can hardly be surprised when special interests use
corrupting campaign money to influence the process! We need to get money out of government; only then will money not be important
in politics. Big government and big campaign money go hand-in-hand.
Link Posted: 12/22/2003 11:40:22 AM EDT
Ron Paul - Just what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution...
Link Posted: 12/22/2003 3:39:04 PM EDT
How come, out of 300,000,000 people we can only find ONE like him? Shit, we only need a few hundred.
Top Top