PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul on the McCain-Feingold ( Campaign Reform Act )




FrankRep
01-21-2010, 03:24 PM
"Campaign Finance Reform" Muzzles Political Dissent (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122203.htm)


Texas Straight Talk
December 22, 2003


In a devastating blow to political speech, the Supreme Court recently upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill passed by Congress last year. The legislation will do nothing to curb special interest power or reduce corruption in Washington, but it will make it harder for average Americans to influence government. “Campaign finance reform” really means the bright-line standard of free speech has been replaced by a murky set of regulations and restrictions that will muzzle political dissent and protect incumbents. Justice Scalia correctly accuses the Court of supporting a law “That cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government…This is a sad day for freedom of speech.”

Two important points ignored by the Court should be made. First, although the new campaign rules clearly violate the First amendment, they should be struck down primarily because Congress has no authority under Article I of the Constitution to regulate campaigns at all. Article II authorizes only the regulation of elections, not campaigns, because our Founders knew Congress might pass campaign laws that protect incumbency. This is precisely what McCain-Feingold represents: blatant incumbent protection sold to the public as noble reform.

Second, freedom of the press applies equally to all Americans, not just the institutional, government-approved media. An unknown internet blogger, a political party, a candidate, and the New York Times should all enjoy the same right to political speech. Yet McCain-Feingold treats the mainstream press as some kind of sacred institution rather than the for-profit industry it is. Why should giant media companies be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to promote candidates and issues, while an organization you support cannot? The notion of creating a preferred class of media, with special First Amendment rights, is distinctly elitist and un-American.

Outrageously, the Court failed to strike down a provision of the campaign finance bill that virtually outlaws criticism of incumbent politicians for 60 days before an election—exactly the time when most voters learn about candidates and issues. The ban essentially prohibits any group from airing radio or television ads that cast politicians in a negative light during the critical final months of an election. The ban even carries the possibility of criminal penalties, meaning the Court has endorsed criminalizing political dissent! Incumbent politicians certainly will be the beneficiaries of the new ban, as they no longer have to suffer through ads that criticize their performance.

Wealthy people will always seek to influence politicians, because government unfortunately plays a very big role in determining who gets (and stays) rich in our country. Our federal government has become a taxing, spending, and regulating leviathan that virtually controls the economy. Having rejected the notion of limited, constitutional government, we can hardly be surprised when special interests use corrupting campaign money to influence the process! We need to get money out of government; only then will money not be important in politics. Big government and big campaign money go hand-in-hand.


SOURCE:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122203.htm

rp08orbust
01-21-2010, 03:31 PM
Anyone not connected with the government should be free to spend or say anything they want.

However, I have no problem with the government, or any organization, making rules about what candidates can receive and from whom in order to remain eligible for the positions they're seeking.

Aratus
01-22-2010, 08:33 AM
the two viral internet cyber-political candidates with a pull and a draw were barack obama & ron paul
having the supreme court sound like its covering up william mckinley's highly legal slush fund
for fear woodrow wilson's IRS will track down monies via civil war era pinkertons, oh my!
politics as usual thought obama's win to be fluke & they FEAR our moneybombs!

paulitics
01-22-2010, 08:44 AM
This will also increase the bottom lines of media companies, who get paid big $$ to advertise political messages from corporations in bed with government. I have mixed feelings about this.

FrankRep
01-25-2010, 09:45 AM
The Supreme Court decision to strike down a key part of the McCain-Feingold law in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission promises to unleash the electoral fury of America's small businesses and citizens groups, so the New York Times and all of the official left is naturally squealing like a stuck pig. by Thomas R. Eddlem

The Coming Small Business Revolution on Politics after Citizens United v. FEC

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228114

andrewh817
01-25-2010, 01:23 PM
Campaign Finance Reform" Muzzles Political Dissent (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122203.htm)


The notion of creating a preferred class of media, with special First Amendment rights, is distinctly elitist and un-American.

SOURCE:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122203.htm

At what point do laws like this stop being un-American and become ABSOLUTELY American? I think we've reached that point.

WaltM
01-25-2010, 03:40 PM
I'm curious, does Dr. Paul oppose the FEC rules that say only Americans can donate to candidates?