Thumbnails for Details
Amendment is not a loophole in federal campaign law! Federal Campaign Law is
a violation of 1st Amendment rights!
Sign the Online Petition
Senator Reid's letter
to FEC Chairman Thomas
Dear Colleague Letter
Fight Tyranny with Keystrokes
Federal campaign reform
of the 1st Amendment. The carcinogens are Pew and
7 other liberal trusts that spent a hundred million plus over a
decade astroturfing the appearance of demand for
reform. The battle to keep the
internet free is the patients only hope.
Prognosis depends on mobilizing the real grassroots, We the
On March 4, 2005 Commissioner Bradley Smith of the Federal
Election Commission blew the whistle and exposed the threat to
free political speech on the internet. Read his statements
on Zdnet and
Election Commission began rulemaking hearings on April 4, 2005.
Do you want to familiarize yourself with terms
like: political action committee (PAC), independent vs. in-Kind
donations, issue vs. express advocacy, spending limits, reporting
intervals and coordination with a candidate’s campaign, before
engaging in political discussion on the web? And remember failure
to comply with campaign finance laws is a felony!
Public input will be accepted until June
3rd so visit
and make the best of this opportunity. Send email, faxes and snail mail
objecting to the application of
the Bipartisan Campaign Act to politics on
the web. This is America’s
last chance to keep a vestige of freedom of speech, press and
assembly guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.
On March 17th Senator Harry
Reid (D) of Nevada introduced a bill,
S 678 IS, to exempt
Internet communications from campaign finance laws. The bill
reads: Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the
end of the following new sentence: "Such term shall not include
communications over the Internet."
Senate bill S.678 is now bi-partisan: Senator Tom Coburn (R) of
Oklahoma is co-sponsoring. Email your senators,
and ask them to
sign on to the above bill.
On April 13th Congressman Jeb Hensarling
(R) of Texas [5th]
introduced an identical bill, HR 1606, in the House of Representatives.
The house bill is cosponsored by Congressman Tim Ryan (D)
of Ohio [17th], Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizonan [6th] ,
Congresswoman Marilyn N. Musgrave of Colorado [4th] and
Congressman Ron Paul of Texas [14th].
Email your congressman and ask them
to sign on. You can find your Congressman's email
DownsizeDC.org is conducting an online
lobbying campaign to get Congress to pass this legislation.
People can use DownsizeDC's Electronic Lobbyist to ask their
Representative and their Senators to sponsor this bill. They can
do so by clicking here
complaints to the FCC as well. Broadcast TV uses the
public air waves and licenses are up for renewal from now until
April 18 I sent the following complaint to the FCC
and FCC Commissioners (KJMWEB@fcc.gov;
Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov). I have not received a reply
Please note my complaint is time sensitive. The public has until
June 3rd to participate in the FEC rulemaking regarding the
application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to public
communications on the internet.
I have not seen any TV coverage, local or national, on the
battle to keep the internet free from FEC regulation and believe
the story is being spiked out of self interest and is not in the
public interest. I have contacted many of the television
stations in Tampa, Florida asking them to do a story and have
not received a reply. I have also sent emails to CBS, ABC, NBC,
Fox, CNN and Face the Nation.
Why do some stories not get told? Maybe those in power make sure
Face the Nation on April 10, 2005 hosted Senate Minority Leader
Harry Reid, whose recent bill, S.678, would exclude the Internet
from regulation and Senator John McCain, who co-authored the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Yet the topic of the Federal
Election Commission vs. the Internet was not mentioned.
The new technology of the internet permits every citizen an
electronic soap box. Maybe the old, unregulated, mainstream
media spiked the story out of self interest and just doesn't
want the competition.
But the Battle for the Internet is America's last chance to keep
a vestige of freedom of speech, press and assembly once
guaranteed by the 1st Amendment and is definitely in the
public's best interest.
Free Speech Needs Jerry Maguire
By Ryan Sager Published 03/18/2005 -
That's because campaign-finance reform is not a
"movement" as its proponents have claimed, it is a lobby -- funded and
orchestrated by eight very liberal foundations which fooled Congress and the
American people into believing that the front groups they set up were
Click adjacent thumbnail to read the entire article,
reprinted by permission of Tech Central Station
There Are No 'Federal' Elections
By Ben DoubleCrossed
Please encourage your Congressman to co-sponsor Representative Roscoe
Bartlett's “First Amendment Restoration Act” — HR 46.
There are no 'Federal' elections, only elections for federal office held in
the states. The Federal Election Commission is not the solution to
corruption in Federal Politics ... it is the corruption of Federal Politics!
Ask yourself the question: who is better suited to regulating federal
politicians, federal politicians or state politicians and the people? The
founding fathers delegated authority for holding and regulating elections to
the states and the people:
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people
The Federal Election Commission's claim to jurisdiction over 'Federal'
elections is both constitutionally and historically bogus.
by Ben DoubleCrossed
If the special interests are half as powerful as we
have been led to believe why shouldn’t we believe they crafted the Campaign
Purpose of Campaign Laws
The need for Federal Campaign reforms hinge on the potential of big
contributions to buy influence in public matters. As a consequence,
candidates are limited in how much they can accept from any given donor and
required to make public reports, at regular intervals, listing the names,
occupations, addresses of donors and their amounts. Furthermore, the
candidate must provide public reports stating how the funds are spent.
Who is Exempt
The preceding sounds like a reasonable and laudable public goal but who is
exempted from contributions that influence public matters?
Nad Blather on: Freeing the pulpit
to speak on politics
Republican Congressman Walter Jones, representing North
Carolina's 3rd District, has introduced legislation (H.R. 235 - the Houses
of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act of 2005) to protect churches (501-3c
corporations) from anxiety that the IRS might take away their tax exempt
status if they get to political. An unjust law introduced in 1945 by
then-Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson is the basis for pastor’s fears.
This is good legislation and deserves support.
Christian churches in early America, especially after The Great Awakening of
1740, had a great deal to do with establishing the sentiment that led to the
Revolutionary War and the ousting of the British. In fact, until sometime in
the 1940s, if a man wanted to run for office he tossed his hat in the ring
at church. If the hat came sailing back he might as well forget it.
Nonetheless, I ask why
Christian ministries and Congressmen are not also sponsoring legislation to
restore 1st Amendment rights of free speech, press and assembly for all
The founders believed that our Creator gave every
individual certain unalienable RIGHTS but instead of unrestricted and equal
‘individual rights” we now participate in our political process through a
system of "limited collective rights" (a socialist idea). But first we are
required to “create a corporation" (a fascist idea). Thereby We the People
trade rights endowed by our CREATOR for privileges licensed by GOVERNMENT!
Nad Blather Anchors
* New Satire
Blad Nather MP3
On Feb 6, 2004 I requested an Advisory
Opinion from the FEC and they replied my questions were to general. But
they are relevant to the BCRA 2005 internet rule making:
1. Can I, as an independent expenditure by a
single citizen or as part of a citizens group, put up web pages, or continue
an existing web page expressly advocating the election or defeat of a
candidate for president 29 days before the election? If so, must I
include a disclaimer stating who paid for the web pages and provide reports
to the FEC?
2. Can I print handbills from a presidential
candidate’s website on my home printer and distribute any number of them?
Would printing and distributing constitute an in-kind donation? Could I use
a personal copier to speed the process? Am I limited to $2000 in paper, ink
and toner or may I print a quantity equivalent to my local newspapers
3. If I title my handbill “My Gazette” do I
qualify for the newspaper exemption or would it still be an “independent
expenditure”? Noah Webster’s dictionary defines a newspaper as apiece of
paper on which is caused to be printed information or advertisement for the
purpose of public distribution.
Apparently I could have done some if not all the above but the Speech
Police did not know or would not answer. America needs to restore the 1st
Amendment as it was understood prior to 1974 when few questions needed to be
asked about how to participate in our democracy. Law is supposed to mean
fixed and apply equally to all. Advisory Opinions on a case by case
basis smack of feudal times and the FEC isn’t Camelot.
More Equal than others
The Socialist Workers Party National Campaign Committee and committees
supporting candidates of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) remain exempt
from some FEC disclosure requirements for political committees.
See advisory opinion
It is often useful to examine exceptions to rules when attempting to
understand their necessity. The following thoughts come to mind when
contemplating this exemption:
Is this a great country or what? We bend over backwards to accommodate those
who would destroy our way of life.” If you want to overthrow the government
of the United States and replace it with a Communist Dictatorship you are
exempt from Federal Election Commission regulations that require the
disclosure of personal information.
Does the FEC need Tort Reform?
Click the adjacent document thumbnail for an example of the Federal
Election Commissions poor use of court system and tax money. Although
the parties were found not guilty of the most serious charge,
'coordination', the victory became moot when the definition of
coordination changed during the proceedings. (several definitions of
coordination have failed a constitutional test.) This MUR began in 1994
and is still in litigation after 11 years although there is little to
justify the pursuit:
Tim Hardy, who ran and lost the Republican primary for Kentucky's 3rd
District Congressional seat:
• Acknowledged that an inadvertent error by a campaign staff member
caused his committee—without his knowledge or authorization—to violate 2
U.S.C. §441b by accepting an in-kind corporate contribution through the
use of a corporate bulk mail permit;
• Agreed to pay the FEC $250 within thirty days of the agreement
pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(6)(B); and
• Agreed to make a good faith effort to establish procedures to prevent
his campaign from accepting corporate contributions should he run for
federal office in the future.
The court concluded that three of 7 flyers published by Freedom's
Heritage Forum contained express advocacy and should have had
disclaimers. The court imposed a $3,000 penalty—$1,000 for each
violation but litigation continues.
In my opinion Freedom's Heritage Forum counsel has raised legitimate
Constitutional questions that were dismissed in error or need to be
continued in a different forum.
President's statements on signing
the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act are confusing and unsettling.
Does the act encourage or discourage individual participation? Are the
provisions of the Act Constitutional?
Don't the President and Congress have an obligation
to make certain, to the best of their abilities, that new laws are
constitutional prior to enacting them? Isn't reasonable caution implied
in their oaths of office? If there are Constitutional questions,
wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution?
Click the adjacent thumbnail for the full text of
"President Signs Campaign Finance Reform Act" from the Office of the
Press Secretary March 27, 2002. I have emphasized statements I question
using a red font face and provide commentary in an adjacent column.
Senator McConnell Smelled the Pew in 2001
Senator McConnell exposed the charitable trusts behind BCRA in the
Congressional Record of Arpil 2, 2001. Mitch deserves credit for his
insight and integrity. Click the adjacent thumbnail for excerpts and
follow the hyperlinks to full text of his speech. It is prophetic
and well worth the read.
The blogosphere is buzzing with talk of stopping the draconian
language of McCain's awful bill from impinging on the denizens of the
web. I encourage Mitch to once again ride to the defense of the 1st
Amendment by signing on to Senator Harry Reid's Bill(S 678 IS). A
bipartisan Reid/McConnell bill could counter McCain/Feingold and keep
the internet exempt
Campaign Finance Reform Proposals and
the First Amendment
TESTIMONY OF BRADLEY A. SMITH - FEBRUARY 27, 1997
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
When a member of Congress so
casually treats his oath to uphold the constitution; and when the House
minority leader suggests that the First Amendment must itself be amended
because free speech "is in direct conflict" with democracy, it is both
timely and appropriate for this committee to hold hearings.
Before congress attempts to solve the problems of campaign finance with more
regulations burdening free speech rights, we should take stock of the fact
that the current regulatory system is responsible for many of the evils we
see in campaign finance. We do not need to plug "loopholes" in the system.
Rather, we should scrap most all of the present system of campaign finance
regulation, remembering the admonition of the First Amendment to the
Constitution, that Congress shall make no law abridging the rights of free
doesn't seem to get it, freedom of the press was
guaranteed to "living beings", the people of the United States, not domestic or
foreign corporations! Corporations did not inherit their rights from living
citizens, until 97 years after ratification of the Constitution.
In the name of leveling the playing field, campaign
finance reform has restricted and discouraged the rights of citizens to participate and
created an issue and advocacy monopoly for the corporate press!
exemptions from laws is tantamount to creating "privilege" for
corporations! The Constitution does not recognize privilege or superior and inferior
rights and requires laws be equally applied to all United States Citizens! In 1886
the Supreme Court decreed corporations would have the same rights as a person and not
Result of Federal Campaign Law
By Ben DoubleCrossed
While the First Amendment of the United States Constitution does in fact
guarantee an unrestricted, free press to foreign citizens and corporations
operating newspapers in these United States, it [ does
not ] guarantee the same rights to United States Citizens or
political organizations including the Democrat and Republican parties!
The outrageous paragraph above accurately describes the result of campaign
regulations passed by the US House of Representatives and the US Senate,
signed into law by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from
contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal,
state, or local election in the United States, either directly or
foreign corporations are considered foreign nationals -
Nonetheless, foreign owned newspapers have more rights than US citizens
because Congress does not want to debate 1st Amendment questions raised by
the Press Exemption.
fact is Congress can no more dictate how a group of citizens can participate in our
democracy than we can limit newspapers, television or radio stations or magazines.
By limiting what other groups can say about us as
candidates, we are encroaching on their freedoms and increasing the overall impact the
press can have on elections. One need only look at the editorial page of the
newspaper in my own district to see the complete lack of objectivity one editor can have.
Considering the circulation of one newspaper, the broadcast capability of one radio
station, the ability of the media to convey a message and impact an election is enormous.
Limiting the First Amendment rights of a portion of the population while protecting
those of the media is dangerous.
Congress, we have an obligation to protect our democracy. This is not about
headlines and winning the public relations war. It's about the system of government
we will leave our children.
Oppose legislation that assaults the Constitution.
Oppose Hutchison. Oppose Shays-Meehan." Content of June 25.
1998 letter from Congresswoman Northup to her colleagues and Richard Lewis.
"The First Amendment
of the Constitution, enacted over two hundred years ago, is America's premier political
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances."
is a powerful statement and should be the touchstone of all campaign finance reform
efforts. The First Amendment ensures that, among other things, citizens can
participate in politics through publicly disclosed contributions to the campaigns of their
choice. It also allows citizens to spend their own money, independent of any
candidate, to influence election outcomes via letters-to-the-editor, pamphlets and even
expensive television advertisements. And the First Amendment gives billionaires the
freedom to spend as much of their money as they want to in support of their own candidacy
-- whether you or I happen to like it or not. This is simply not my opinion, it has
long been the position of the Supreme Court. Political speech enjoys more
constitutional protection than commercial speech."
Excerpt from October 18, 1996 letter from Mitch McConnell to his constituent
Section 431(9)(B)(i) makes a distinction where there
is no real difference: the media is extremely powerful by
any measure, a "special interest" by any definition, and heavily engaged in the
"issue advocacy" and "independent expenditure" realms of political
persuasion that most editorial boards find so objectionable when anyone other than a media
outlet engages in it. To illustrate
the absurdity of this special exemption the media enjoys, I frequently cite as an example
the fact that if the RNC bought NBC from GE the FEC would regulate the evening news and,
under the McCain-Feingold "reform" bill, Tom Brokaw could not mention a
candidate 60 days before an election. This is patently absurd.
Senate debate on the McCain-Feingold bill advanced to the point of amendments, among the
first I offered would have been one to delete section 431(9)(B)(i). Whenever the
opportunity presents itself in the future, I look forward to doing just that.
I believe it would be an enlightening discussion. Indeed, the issue was frequently
raised during the floor debates in 1997 and 1998 and helped to crystallize for Senators
and the C-SPAN viewing audience that the campaign finance debate is, indeed, a discussion
of core constitutional freedom."
from Mitch McConnell's July 8, 1998 letter to his constituent Richard Lewis.
Immediate Release: September 14, 1999
DeLay Fights To Keep The Internet Free
Amendment To Stop New Government Regulations
DC: Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), the Majority
Whip, today offered an amendment to the Shays-Meehan campaign reform bill to exempt the
Internet from the bills draconian speech regulation. The DeLay amendment
would only apply to free speech aspects of the Internet, not to political fundraising.
the "corporate press" exemption is addressed, the ombudsman at the
newspaper office acts as the gatekeeper of free political speech. If the
newspaper prints your political comments about an issue or candidate, your advocacy
may reach a circulation of hundreds of thousands and you enjoy the same exemption from
campaign finance spending limits and reporting requirements
as the Lexington Herald Leader or Louisville's Courier-Journal.
If the newspaper rejects your article and you decide to deliver your
message door to door via handbills, you need to visit the State Board of Election Finance
Registry and familiarize yourself with terms like: political action committee (PAC),
independent Vs in-Kind donations, issue Vs express advocacy, spending limits, reporting
intervals and coordination with a candidates campaign. If that isn't daunting
enough to discourage you from participating, remember failure to comply with Campaign
Finance Laws is punishable
as a Class D felony.