Time for civil disobedience on McCain-Feingold?

S

simonov jr

New member
As you all know, this piece of garbage will prohibit free speech within 60 days of an election. Should there be an effort by law-abiding citizens/constituents to ignore it and force court challenges by getting arrested? Seems like if 10,000 of us EACH bought one of those $30 for 30 second late-night cable spots and put a political message up they'd be awful embarrassed arresting the lot of us. Since it is blatantly unconstitutional, we'd likely win AND it would show millions of americans the importance of standing for the bill of rights...any thoughts?

http://handguncontrolinc.org
 
M

Monkeyleg

New member
Interesting idea. I have no doubt that somebody is going to run an ad of some kind that will run afoul of the law, and the case will wind up before the SC, who will rule it unconstitutional.

Regarding your idea, I just wonder what the legal costs involved would be.

Dick
 
A

Art Eatman

Staff in Memoriam
That thing is gonna be hit with so many lawsuits, every lawyer in the U.S. is gonna be droolin'.

It will get tossed out; nothing will then change regarding campaign finance--which is what the Incumbents' Protective Association wanted, all along.

Or am I too cynical?

Art
 
L

lonegunman

New member
Art, I think I disagree with you.

I believe a lot of incumbents would love McCain-Feingold to pass (mostly democrats).


McCain-Feingold limits political speech, which favors incumbents staying in office.
 
C

Cosmoline

New member
It's DOA in the courts. Most of those voting for it know this, which is why they're voting for it. In fact, McCain may be the only one who doesn't know this.
 
W

Waitone

New member
I get the biggest hoot outta people yelping McCain-Feingold infringes the first amendment. How could members of the senate voluntarily agree to a measure that will limit free speech. Anyone lurking this forum knows its really easy to ignore a constitutional amendment. You just ignore it then when called on it, supporters mouth platitudes such as "its common sense speech control" or "it protects our children from the lies of a campaign."

No sympathy here. McCain-Feingold is merely the first amendment equivelent to a blue gazillion gun control laws limiting the second amendment. Time for civil disobedience? Where is your line? If the same tactics are used the First Amendment will die a death of a thousand cuts. No single cut is severe enought to justify "civil disobedience" but collectively political speech is controlled. Is MF unconstitutional? Without question. Will it pass? I think there is a chance. When you have a congress filled with spineless representatives, it is really easy to pass the buck and let (hope) someone else in the process stand up and say no. The senate could have killed it but instead let the house kill it. The house could just as easily say let the president kill it. The president said don't send that thing to me, I'll let the courts kill it. Suits are filed, and the SC rules it constitutional because the court has been populated by people who think the constitution is a living document.

Yea, civil disobedience is justified, just a little late in my view.

As goes the Second Amendment, so goes the First Amendment. You want to see the future of the first amendment, study up on what has happened to the second amendment.
 
I

Ironbarr

New member
Okay...

Let's start the Bill of Rights Party - BOR and we'll all stand for the next House/Senate election. R U Game?
 
A

Art Eatman

Staff in Memoriam
lonegunman: You may well be correct. However, if you're not in favor of campaign finance reform, but must look good for the homefolk voters, what better way than to vote for a "do-good" law which will be overturned?

Then you face your constituency and say, "Hey, folks, I tried, but *they* just couldn't get it right!"

:(, Art
 
L

lonegunman

New member
Art, I do agree with your last post, 100%.

"Campaign Finance Reform" sounds like a good idea to most voters. Kind of like "Common Sense Gun Safety Measures" sound good.

Most people probably won't take the time to read the details and find out what the law really does.
 
M

mobias

Moderator
Exactly. Its the "in thing" to gripe about money in politics. Money is not the problem. Full disclosure is all that is necessary.
 
Q

Quartus

New member
Am I disremembering? Hasn't the SC alrady ruled that an individuals right to run campaign ads cannot be restricted? My understanding of MF (there's irony in them thar initials) is that it would restrict PACs, etc., not individuals. Of course, that works heavily against conservatives. (By design, of course.)

I really like Alan Keyes' proposal for campaign finance reform. It has two main points:

  1. Immediate, full disclosesure of all donations. No secrets!
  2. No ballot vote, no dollar vote. No PACS, no union ads, no corporate ads, nuthin.

No limits on contributions. Any individual can run any ad, or give any amount. Yes, BS can run ads, but she has to shell out of her own pocket to do so - she can't create some phony 'foundation' and hire professional campaigners to do it for her. And, yes, she has to disclose who's doing it. No more ads from PACs with tear-jerking names, like "People for the American Way", or, "People for Common Sense Gun Control." The ad will say, "Paid for by Barbara Streisand", and everyone will know it's just her opinion. (I know, for lots of idiots that will be enough to sway them her way.) Still, the whole thing is a lot more honest.

Sounds good to me.
 
L

lonegunman

New member
Yes, McCain-Feingold is designed to reduce money from PAC's and "special interest groups".

But remember, PACs and Special Interest Groups are made up of citizens who pool their resources to mount a more effective campaign. NRA is a prime example of a special interest group.

As I understand it, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, the NRA would be limited in what it could do under this bill.
 
W

Waitone

New member
Not only are you right, but the NRA by McCain's own admission, is targeted by the bill.

The NRA must be doing something right in order for congress to put out a hit on the organization.

I feel a donation comin' on!
 
L

lonegunman

New member
McCain is the most dangerous man in the Senate at this point.

He needs to go, even if he is replaced by a flaming liberal democrat we would be better off.
 
C

ctdonath

New member
The right to free speech must include the right to finance somebody else's speech.

If I want to give you $10,000 to run your McCain-bashing ad, nobody can stop me from giving it and you from taking it. Any burrowcrap that tries to stop me will, at best (for him), will get a stern "no" from an annoyed judge.
 
Q

Quartus

New member
lonegunman, I think from your post that I sounded like I approved of, or at least wasn't too opposed to, MF. I did not mean to give that impression, trust me! But in re-reading my post, I see that I probably did. For the record, I think MF and their bill should all be sent to the sewage treatment plant.

I was just trying to point out that the SC might NOT throw out this beast. That would not be good.


BTW, I think McCain's status as a 'war hero' is open to debate. But his current status sure isn't! The words, "scum", and, "pinko" come to mind.
 
T

Tom A

New member
BTW, I think McCain's status as a 'war hero' is open to debate. But his current status sure isn't! The words, "scum", and, "pinko" come to mind.
Click to expand...

That sure was some superb programming by the North Vietnamese wasn't it, kicking in as it has thirty years later? If I didn't know better I'd swear it was life imitating science fiction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top