| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| The Liberal Assault on Freedom of Speech |
| 2004-02-09 |
| Please follow the link to a very significant speach given by Thomas G. West, a professor of politics at the University of Dallas and a member of the board of directors and a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute. Here are some choice excerpts: "Those who favor campaign finance regulation sometimes claim that their primary concern is with ’corruption and the appearance of corruption’ – that is, what used to be called bribery or the appearance of bribery. But that is not the real agenda of the reformers. There is a good reason why the 2002 Act, like the 1974 law, was voted for by almost every House and Senate Democrat, and opposed by a large majority of Republicans: These laws are primarily about limiting the speech of conservatives." "Some congressmen were willing to be even more open about the fact that the new law would cut down on conservative criticism of candidates. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Dem.-Ill.) said: ’If my colleagues care about gun control, then campaign finance is their issue so that the NRA does not call the shots.’ Democratic Reps. Marty Meehan (Mass.) and Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), and Democratic Sens. Harry Reid (Nev.) and Dick Durbin (Ill.) also cited the National Rifle Association’s political communications as a problem that the Act would solve. Several liberal Republicans chimed in." I just bet they did. Traitors. "During the Republican Eisenhower years, the FCC paid little attention to broadcasting content, and a number of conservative radio stations emerged. After John Kennedy was elected in 1960, his administration went on the offensive against them. Kennedy’s Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Bill Ruder, later admitted, ’Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.’" "This strategy was highly successful. Hundreds of radio stations cancelled conservative shows that they had been broadcasting. The FCC revoked the license of one radio station, WXUR of Media, Pennsylvania, a tiny conservative Christian broadcaster. When WXUR appealed to the courts, one dissenting judge noted ’that the public has lost access to information and ideas . . . as a result of this doctrinal sledge-hammer [i.e., the Fairness Doctrine].’ The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal. It saw no free speech violation in the government shutdown of a radio station for broadcasting conservative ideas." Liberalhawk, I’d be more than happy to hear what you think abou this article. |
| Posted by:Secret Master |
| #6 No LH, raise the amount allowed. It was almost 30 years ago that the limits were set. It's like the IRA contribution, $2K doesn't buy what it did in the early 80s. Raise the amount to $5K a candidate and each donation available for public review via all sources w/in 72 hours. And personally I shouldn't be able to contribute to a candidate which doesn't live in my state. That should really shake things up. And get rid of the law that allows donors secrecy, a la that socialist candidate who wanted to keep her donors a secret. |
| Posted by: Anonymous2U 2004-2-9 11:08:59 PM |
| #5 The preferred method would be more comprehensive public financing. Leading to more candidates like Sharpton -- more interested in sucking off the campaign cash and publicity teat than in actually governing. Then you get to the question of what happens to the freedom of people to support the candidates and ideas they believe in. Will I be able to contribute to candidate A? Will my tax dollars go towards, say, the American Nazi Party candidate? Isn't that forcing me to subsidize speech I don't agree with? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-2-9 7:53:58 PM |
| #4 LH, Japan has a decent system, but what would probably benefit the US the most would be an electorate that is curious enough to be interested in what is going on. The information is out there, but it takes a little more time to be a real citizen than most people are willing to put forward. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-2-9 5:30:55 PM |
| #3 campaign finance reform is not my top issue. NRA is gonna be strong regardless, cause its got mass membership. Groups that rely on contributions are narrow industry lobbyists - dare i name the sugar industry as an example, which gutted our FTA with Australia? That the underlying concern, and John McCain is much concerned as are some Dems. OTOH folks do look at the partisan considerations when looking at this, and i suppose thats inevitable. Im not a constitutional law expert and im not going to get into a tussle about whether the law is in technical violation of the 1st amendment - it may well be. But crushing freedom of speech was certainly not the intention. Rather its an inevitable side effect of trying to control money in politics negatively, by limiting donations. The preferred method would be more comprehensive public financing. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2004-2-9 4:59:56 PM |
| #2 I thought that the bill should have been called the Incumbent Protection Act, But ruprecht, you make a good point. The current act is a consitutional abomination that only Sandra Dee O'Connor could provide a convoluted justification for. It would be funny if the Dems get steam-rollered repeatedly until they are forced to contitutionally challenge their own idea. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-2-9 4:12:26 PM |
| #1 I could be wrong, but it sounds like crap. I've read over and over how the Dems have been hit hardest by the ban on large donations and how the use of Moveon.org type groups allows them to circumvent much of the campaign finance laws. I could be wrong but I don't think the NRA is tax-exempt. They truly are non-partisan (yes most pro-guns are Republicans but they've supported a handful of Dems that agreed with their politics) and chose to avoid tax exemption for some other reason. I can't see how they could be controlled by McCain Feingold. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-2-9 3:38:16 PM |