From the article:WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Republican National Committee launched a wide-ranging legal assault Wednesday on more than two dozen political groups working to defeat President Bush.
The committee says the groups are part of an quot;unprecedented criminal enterprisequot; to circumvent federal campaign laws and pour illegal soft money contributions into the 2004 race.Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the vast anti-Bush conspiracy is going strong!
Pity the RNC, the quot;party of freedomquot; I'm told, can't handle a little thing like free speech.
Where do I sign up, comrade. Don't let any of those right wings idiots find out about this, though.
Hmmmm, a large group of people, organizing to defeat Bush.
This has to be the worst kept secret I've heard in a while.
Charlie (rumour monger) Monoxide
Pretty funny coming from the same bunch that said McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional, I really like the part where they claim there is an organization against the Bush White House.
Riiiight, when the president manufacturers fake news and press releases and coordinateds the agenda of the media right from his bully pulpit.
Next we will hear the RNC battle cry quot;It's Bill Clinton's fault!quot;
The McCain/Feingold loophole was pointed out by many when the bill passed.
I expected no less than for both parties to funnel soft money through stoolie grass roots orgs.
While it may not be in the spirit of the law, it is certainly within the letter of the law since even though these groups have a common purpose there is no true collusion.
Originally posted by Dancing David
Pretty funny coming from the same bunch that said McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional McCain Feingold is unconstitutional but it is currently law so possible violation of it should be tolerated?
Exactly what one would expect from this administration.
I can only hope that the victims of this attempt to suppress political speech make it known far and wide. If they don't, I'm sure some court will simply shut them up and do something intended to make Kerry ineligible for candidacy altogether.
Originally posted by a_unique_person
Where do I sign up, comrade. Don't let any of those right wings idiots find out about this, though. [Communist Russian Voice]
For the Union
[/Communist Russian Voice]
Originally posted by corplinx McCain Feingold is unconstitutional but it is currently law so possible violation of it should be tolerated? Really? Unconstitutional You say?
Hmm the supreme court seems to disagree with Your position. Perhaps You could enlighten the rest of us mortals and the same time give the foremost minds in law the benefit of Your insights?
Please feel free to post any case or precedent or ruling that demonstrates your position. I'm sure were all happy to learn the finer points of constitutional law.
Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel Really? Unconstitutional You say?
Hmm the supreme court seems to disagree with Your position. Perhaps You could enlighten the rest of us mortals and the same time give the foremost minds in law the benefit of Your insights?
Please feel free to post any case or precedent or ruling that demonstrates your position. I'm sure were all happy to learn the finer points of constitutional law.
Its really simple, the term quot;freedom of speechquot; is especially intended to cover free political speech. Any bill that attempts to limit political speech (especially in the month preceding an election) flies in the face of the constitution.
I am surprised that you have never heard of the first amendment which protects political speech and insures that the government will not establish a state church.
Now, the lawsuit posed against McCain/Feingold showed how corrupt the supreme court can be. The gyst of the decision was that quot;yes this infringes the first and foremost law of the land but its necessary because those politicians need campaign finance reformquot;.
I think its okay to believe that the supreme court can be wrong. In fact, there are members of this forum who prattle on all the time about a certain decision in 2000 they disagree with.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.Do you have any evidence that government has the authority to limit political speech just because its close to an election?
I am a skeptic, you support the outrageous claim. The supreme court itself couldn't so I don't suppose a simpleton on an internet forum will fare better.
Please feel free to post any case or precedent or ruling that demonstrates your position. I'm sure were all happy to learn the finer points of constitutional law.You challanged corp(Bush Re-election committee)linx and got squat back except an insult. Wait, you also got misdirection, and spin I am a skeptic
Riiiiiight, of course you are, lol
Far be it for me to be considered in the Corplinx Fan Club, but he's dead-on about this.
The quot;campaign financequot; laws are a clear, blatant violation of the first amendment. The fact that the Bush campaign people are trying to shut MoveOn.org up is clear proof of that.
And yes, you can disagree with SCOTUS. Hell, once they ruled that Blacks were 3/5 of a human being. You'll excuse me if I don't find that particularly well-grounded in constitutional law.
Originally posted by Cleon
The quot;campaign financequot; laws are a clear, blatant violation of the first amendment. The fact that the Bush campaign people are trying to shut MoveOn.org up is clear proof of that.And, the fact they're using this in an election year?
Using an unconstitutional law they passed to rule out the opposition?
Um, this is america, right?
Originally posted by Cleon
The quot;campaign financequot; laws are a clear, blatant violation of the first amendment. The fact that the Bush campaign people are trying to shut MoveOn.org up is clear proof of that.
Not all of McCain/Feingold violates freespeech, however if it can be used to silence moveon because they want to elect John Kerry, then those relevant portions are obviously against free political speech.
Originally posted by corplinx Not all of McCain/Feingold violates freespeech, however if it can be used to silence moveon because they want to elect John Kerry, then those relevant portions are obviously against free political speech. Yinno, you aren't all bad, Corpse.
What do you think about the shrub using it?
Originally posted by jj Yinno, you aren't all bad, Corpse.
What do you think about the shrub using it? Hererin lies the thing that makes this tricky. McCain-Feingold was wrong and is wrong. Noncompliance means we may get a court case where the law itself can be challenged.
It should be noted that moveon for instance is not being civilly disobedient, in fact that are going to great lengths to try to skirt the law and take advantage of a techinical loophole in McCain-Feingold. I believe where they messed up was a memo that was leaked explicitly endorsing Kerry.
This is the best part:
The RNC complaint says that the 527 groups are violating the 2002 campaign finance reform act by paying for anti-Bush ads and other political activities with unlimited contributions raised from wealthy donors, unions and liberal interest groups -- so-called soft money that political parties can no longer raise.Ohhh, how quot;convieeeeenent.quot;
Hmm.. it seems that the Democratic Party is violating campaign reforms laws signed into effect in 2002, those bastards!
Here's another brilliant RNC campaign technique:
WASHINGTON - A Republican voter survey used to raise political money identifies Thailand and the Philippines as countries that quot;harbor and aid terrorists,quot; a description that has angered officials from the two nations.
A question on the National Republican Congressional Committee's quot;Ask America 2004 Nationwide Policy Surveyquot; asks, quot;Should America broaden the war on terrorism into other countries that harbor and aid terrorists such as Thailand, Syria, Somalia, the Philippines, etc.?quot;
Accompanying the survey, which also poses questions about health care, the economy and other issues, was a four-page letter signed by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., which asks for a donation to help quot;keep the Republican Party in control of the U.S. House.quot;
Officials from both countries say they've been wrongly labeled and would contact the NRCC to complain. Both countries have been praised by the Bush administration for their roles in the anti-terror war.
from : localhost/story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...rveyamp;e=2amp;ncid=
Corplinx:
quot;Do you have any evidence that government has the authority to limit political speech just because its close to an election?quot;The law can place limits of all forms of speech, including political.
Slander, libel, insiteful, hate speech, child porn are all excluded from 1st amendment protection
The second part of your sentence although it requires no retort because it is ridicules on it's face, none the less...
The decision was dated December 10, 2003 on a bill that was introduced on January 22, 2001
The history of campaign finance reform is strewn with failed attempts from as far back a 1867...
/snip
In 1905, for instance, President Theodore Roosevelt argued for a ban on all political contributions by corporations, and, in 1907, he called for public financing of federal candidates via candidates' political parties. Though Congress responded by passing the Tillman Act, it contained no provision for public financing and its ban on corporate giving was easily evaded or ignored. Later, in 1924, the national Democratic Party platform included a plank, proposed by William Jennings Bryan, calling for federal candidates to be furnished quot;reasonable means of publicity at public expense.quot; But the Republicans won the presidency that year and this proposal, too, came to naught.
/snip
Business as usual.
You cannot engage in certain forms of action or speech that is inciteful or hate filled even tho it is in a political context.
quot;I am a skeptic, you support the outrageous claim. quot;
Skeptic's do not engage in unsupported declaratives, especially ones that are factually incorrect. I don't know what claim I made , I can't seem to find one in my post. Perhaps you could indulge me and point it out?
quot; The supreme court itself couldn't so I don't suppose a simpleton on an internet forum will fare better.quot;
Ahh the final confirmation of the lack of wit and failure of an argument -the Ad Hom. That's an evolutionary path I could have predicted You would take. Lincoln one said :quot; Better to be silent and be thought a fool, then to speak and remove all doubtquot;. You may want to take his advice to heart.
BTW Altho I sympathize with the bills intent,I disagree with the courts finding.
Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Ahh the final confirmation of the lack of wit and failure of an argument -the Ad Hom. Nonsense. There is a difference between not having an arguement and using an ad hominem to cover it versus schooling someone and then rubbing their nose in it.
By the way, there's something on your nose.
You see how smart Lincoln was?
Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
You see how smart Lincoln was? Oh, right, let me see if I can play this game right. Uhh.... yes, after your last post I have a perfect example of what Mr. Lincoln was speaking of.
Now do you say, quot;know you are but what am I?quot; ?
Originally posted by Cleon
yes, you can disagree with SCOTUS. Hell, once they ruled that Blacks were 3/5 of a human being. You'll excuse me if I don't find that particularly well-grounded in constitutional law. From the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2: (bold emphasis mine)Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.The quot;other personsquot; were slaves. I'm not sure the SCOTUS ever had to rule on this, it's pretty clear in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment ended this distinction.
Bush's campaign finance vs Kerry
Still, Bush's war chest easily eclipses Kerry's. The Bush-Cheney campaign has remained above the $100 million mark through repeated cycles of heavy spending on advertisements. Millions have been raised in single days as Bush traveled to attend fund-raising events in recent months.
Bush also benefits from taxpayer-funded trips billed as official White House events.In the first quarter of 2004, the DNC raised more than $27 million, beating the $26.9 million raised in the first quarter of 2000, when Democrats occupied the White House and were allowed to raise large, unlimited donationsquot; ...
...a spokeswoman with the Republican National Committee said the RNC beat the DNC's fund raising.
Republican National Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson told CNN the committee pulled in $48.1 million for the first quarter of 2004
