NRA to Lose Free Speech Rights; Politicians and News Media Immune
- Thread starter Sharon
- Start date
Ah, McCain/Feingold strikes again! I don't see how they can do that and still keep Air America, Rush Limbaugh and others going.
Yo, liberals! THIS is some government fascism here. Forget Howard Stern and his little obscenities - now your government is trying to squelch free speech about social issues! Get your pitchforks! Let's riot!
Yo, liberals! THIS is some government fascism here. Forget Howard Stern and his little obscenities - now your government is trying to squelch free speech about social issues! Get your pitchforks! Let's riot!
SmallTown
Football season!
Hot N Bothered
New Member
Can anyone tell me exactly what the law says, or where to check for that information?
I have no doubt that it was designed to "gag" certain organizations, but I doubt it said..."the NRA can't publish ads that criticize..." So what DOES it say?
I have no doubt that it was designed to "gag" certain organizations, but I doubt it said..."the NRA can't publish ads that criticize..." So what DOES it say?
Or #1, it would seem.
soul4sale
New Member
Originally posted by Sharon
http://client.xntec.com/videomail/NRA/06172004/mainstory.asp
Well, the Sierra Club et al is under the same gun (ok, bad choice of words), but that still doesn't make it right.
http://client.xntec.com/videomail/NRA/06172004/mainstory.asp
Well, the Sierra Club et al is under the same gun (ok, bad choice of words), but that still doesn't make it right.
My GOD!! We AGREE on something!!! Alert the press!!!
You have to wonder what the morons that voted
on this were thinking. And then you have to wonder what BUSH was thinking when he signed it into law. 
I use the Library of Congress site http://thomas.loc.gov/
Here is the link to the HR 2356, which is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107Rx54m0::
soul4sale
New Member
Originally posted by vraiblonde
You have to wonder what the morons that voted on this were thinking. And then you have to wonder what BUSH was thinking when he signed it into law.
I credit the Senate for trying to do something to something to bring representative democracy back to the federal government, but they went about it all the wrong way. Muzzling interest groups in the final days of the election treads way too close to the 1A line, if not tramples across it with glee. All M/F did was make the money game more complicated and allow politicos a get-out-of-truth-free card at the critcal end of the campaign.
A better tack would have been to excercise eminant domain over the public airwaves (they are public, ya know), allowing registered candidates some free airtime. In order to prevent a media backlash, the bill could have severely restricted media property holders from donating to campaigns or politcal parties. That way, Fox, Viacom, T-W, Clear Channel, etc couldn't just dump money into defeating Reps and Senators that voted for the measure. Of course, that would require the FCC to wake up and smell the propaganda...
One unintended result of such a utopian outcome; however, would be boring TV during the campaign season. Think public radio membership drive...ugh.
You have to wonder what the morons that voted
on this were thinking. And then you have to wonder what BUSH was thinking when he signed it into law. I credit the Senate for trying to do something to something to bring representative democracy back to the federal government, but they went about it all the wrong way. Muzzling interest groups in the final days of the election treads way too close to the 1A line, if not tramples across it with glee. All M/F did was make the money game more complicated and allow politicos a get-out-of-truth-free card at the critcal end of the campaign.
A better tack would have been to excercise eminant domain over the public airwaves (they are public, ya know), allowing registered candidates some free airtime. In order to prevent a media backlash, the bill could have severely restricted media property holders from donating to campaigns or politcal parties. That way, Fox, Viacom, T-W, Clear Channel, etc couldn't just dump money into defeating Reps and Senators that voted for the measure. Of course, that would require the FCC to wake up and smell the propaganda...
One unintended result of such a utopian outcome; however, would be boring TV during the campaign season. Think public radio membership drive...ugh.
I always thought that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to set out immunities and enumerate specific rights for "individual" citizens and not groups or corporations. So I don’t see it as truly coming close to being a 1st Amendment issue. Also the bill that became law was Shays-Meehan. The McCain-Feingold Bill passed the Senate but not the House. And these groups’ can still run position ads, including voting records of elected folk on specific issues; they just can't slam or endorse a candidate during the prohibited time period before an election.Originally posted by soul4sale
Originally posted by vraiblonde
You have to wonder what the morons that voted
I credit the Senate for trying to do something to something to bring representative democracy back to the federal government, but they went about it all the wrong way. Muzzling interest groups in the final days of the election treads way too close to the 1A line, if not tramples across it with glee. All M/F did was make the money game more complicated and allow politicos a get-out-of-truth-free card at the critcal end of the campaign.
A better tack would have been to excercise eminant domain over the public airwaves (they are public, ya know), allowing registered candidates some free airtime. In order to prevent a media backlash, the bill could have severely restricted media property holders from donating to campaigns or politcal parties. That way, Fox, Viacom, T-W, Clear Channel, etc couldn't just dump money into defeating Reps and Senators that voted for the measure. Of course, that would require the FCC to wake up and smell the propaganda...
One unintended result of such a utopian outcome; however, would be boring TV during the campaign season. Think public radio membership drive...ugh.
How does M/F bring representative democracy back to the federal government?
That would be interesting to watch indeed. There's really no such thing as "public airwaves", unless you're talking about the air that radio signals travel on to reach their destination. The only real public airwaves are the stations that are taxpayer funded, like NPR. The rest area commercial venture. So it would be kind of like saying that Wal-Mart has to set aside a portion of its inventory for people to just pick up as they want.
On one hand I think news organizations should keep their opinions to themselves and just report the news. The Washington Post and NYT are both NOTORIOUS for passing off opinion pieces as hard news. But real news channels will never happen as long as human beings analyze and report said news.
So maybe a better idea would be to let 'em have at it and the public can decide. We shouldn't be restricted by speech or money when it comes to our political process anyway - to me M/F is the ultimate example of the government trying to silence the People. Maybe the Commies taught McCain that little trick when they had him locked up - dunno.
Groups and corporations are made up of people and therefore have free speech rights. As a business owner, I'm all for corporations retaining the right to use their public position to get an audience for their views. You could make the argument that Hollywood celebrities do that very thing, so why shouldn't anyone else be able to?
Michael Moore just made a movie specifically designed to influence the election. He doesn't even try to hide that fact or whitewash it. Shouldn't this law apply to him as well?
And those individuals do retain their rights, but we regulate and restrict groups and corporations differently then we do the individual. These groups and corporations still retain that ability, it has just been restricted for a brief period prior to elections and they can still exercise their “voice” as long as they do it within the constraints of the law.
Are these people creating and airing political endorsement ads? No, it’s groups and corporations doing it.
Nope, he can exercise his free speech when he creates his garbage, but I suspect those that distribute it will probably have to halt showing it once the restriction takes affect (kind of like the ban on showing Arnold’s movies right before the recall election in California). Not real sure how the law impacts entertainment venues, maybe Congress missed it when they made this law? I haven't read it all as of yet, but I have seen the exceptions that allow certain types of issue statements to still be aired.
Well...yeah.
What about Madonna making her whole concert tour an anti-Bush bashfest? What about the Dixie Chicks? Barbra Streisand? What about all the other celebrities that are very public about their political preferences and use their influence and popularity to sway voter decisions? I will suggest that they make a much bigger impact than a commercial from the DNC.
Until we hit the date specified (which is what - 60 days prior to the election) I don't see it as a problem. But I am not sure about that, as I said earlier I haven’t read the entire act and don’t now how it works with live performances, but I think the law only deals with broadcasts and not live performances.Originally posted by vraiblonde
Well...yeah.
As to celebrities having a bigger impact, I guess it would depend on the demographics of their following and if people actually place weight on what they spout off about. I know that I give them no credence at all as they are usually so far out in left field with what they opine that I think they should just stick to their day (or night) job. Those that are influenced by these people are probably the same ones that don’t vote anyway. Maybe you should do a poll to see what the impact is locally. I would be surprised if there are more then a few people that would admit that they are influenced at all by what a performer says.
Just because they won't admit it doesn't make it any less true.
But that's neither here nor there. Campaign Finance Reform is about as unConstitutional as a law could get. It restricts free speech with regard to the most important thing we have going for us as a nation - the political election process. The media folks can say what they want - endorse candidates, do little smear stories, refuse to report certain events, whatever.
Two things stick out in my head:
How the media totally ignored Alan Keyes, even though he was the only Republican running in the primary that had anything intelligent to say.
And how the Wash Post and Balt Sun played up KKT like she was the second coming and virtually ignored her obvious negative aspects.
I'm not willing to have the sudden death minutes of an election completely in the hands of the media and Madonna. It's just wrong.