Shays & Meehan hate your freedom
By krempasky Posted in FEC — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Well, not exactly - at least I have no specific knowledge thereof. But I wrote that headline with about as much respect for the truth as Messrs. Shays & Meehan wrote their "Dear Colleague" letter opposing the Online Freedom of Speech Act. They write,
The legislation will exempt the Internet from campaign finance laws, thus opening up a major loophole for soft money to once again flow freely into our political system. (my emphasis)
This
Is
Not
True.
This legislation restores an exemption for the internet from a very small section of ONE campaign finance statute - not from campaign finance laws generally. And as it regards the gaping maw of a loophole that these regulators would have you terrified of - I'll let Allison dispose of those silly arguments.
Even with the Hensarling bill’s exemption, corporations and unions would still be unable to make express advocacy “expenditures” or in kind contributions.
It shouldn't surprise you that Trevor Potter made the exact same points in his Roll Call op-ed this morning.
October 31, 2005
Stop the Return of Corrupt Soft Money:
Oppose H.R. 1606Dear Colleague:
On Wednesday, November 2, we urge you to oppose H.R. 1606, the so-called
Online Freedom of Speech Act, which the House is scheduled to consider
under suspension. The legislation will exempt the Internet from campaign
finance laws, thus opening up a major loophole for soft money to once
again flow freely into our political system.We understand that a number of bloggers are concerned that somehow
campaign finance laws will prevent them from exercising their freedom of
speech. The reality is that FEC regulations can and should reaffirm that
bloggers can continue to write freely and at the same time make sure paid
political advertising is brought under the law. H.R. 1606 goes far beyond
exempting bloggers and allows federal candidates and political parties to
again make use of soft money in federal campaigns.A desire to help bloggers is no excuse to roll back existing law banning
soft money in federal campaigns.If this law were to pass, a member of Congress could simply go to a large
donor, corporation or union and control their spending of $1 million in
soft money to pay for political advertising all over the Internet.This is precisely the type of behavior we prevented when Congress passed
the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002. By all accounts, the law is
working - despite concerns about the law being the death knell of the
parties, the parties were strengthened as they raised more in hard money
2004 than they raised in hard and soft money combined in 2002 and greatly
expanded their donor base.We urge you to vote no on H.R. 1606 and uphold our nation's campaign
finance laws.Sincerely,
Christopher Shays
Marty Meehan
« Financing the General Election — Comments (6) | Online Freedom of Speech Act — Comments (4) »
Shays & Meehan hate your freedom 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...is a national disgrace. Just a sorry excuse for a human being.
Can someone please tell those guys that the Internet IS the real world!
He kissed up to Newt in 94, and was one of the first to turn on him. He's been a mincing "Jim Jeffords" ever since.
Will be first in line to sign-over the Internet to the UN! It makes one want to wretch!
Unless the bill is tightened to stop soft money following, then its a prob.
I think shays understands the fears of bloggers.
Guess whatever loopholes are in the bill, can be fixed in committee.
I think its a little harsh to say that he is against free speech.
"If this law were to pass, a member of Congress could simply go to a large donor, corporation or union and control their spending of $1 million in soft money to pay for political advertising all over the Internet."
And if they do, it's up to the voters to decide if they've sold themselves for the contribution. The real problem is, and will continue to be, that money will flow toward favors. The money is NOT the problem-- the legislators are.
So many of them (like McCain) simply do not trust people to vote intelligently, and all of them want to protect incumbent advantages.
This legislation should be defeated, no question. It's pathetic that we would even consider "repairing" a piece of legislation as completely, directly, indefensibly, aimed at free speech as McCain-Feingold is, and voting for this is essentially admitting that it's OK with a few "fixes". It's not, and it never will be.
Us Krazy Kossacks are going to be lobbying our half of Capitol Hill tomorrow. Care to join us on your side?
but do these people who think that violating the First Amendment through campaign finance laws ever look around and notice that there's just as much money (if not more) sloshing around the political process in this country now than there was before they passed these laws?
I mean, I don't recall a huge absence of TV ads from Bush, Kerry, Senator X et al during the last presidential campaign.
And the only effect these laws have is to frighten people who can't afford sophisticated legal help to make sure they aren't violating the law by criticizing the government. I mean, can you really be sure that you haven't violated the campaign finance laws by collecting money from friends and then buying TV ad space to criticize a candidate in a federal election? Shouldn't this be beyond question in the United States?