Subject: Fwd: Campaign law fears proving well-founded Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:09:47 -0500 To: lpny_discussion From: Bob Armstrong I sent the following with a core couple of lines of the article back to Keene . " Us Libertarians think you Conservatives are right about half= the time . See , eg , my http://cosy.com/Liberty/FirstClause.htm . The loss of LIBERTY in our country , and under the maniacal= disregard for the screams of the world -- our global electronic democracy= -- of BUSH in his family and theocratic vendetta , makes this far= and away the most frightening time in my 58 years . *** IMPEACH BUSH *** " --- Original Message --- From: "American Conservative Union" To: =A0 Sent: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:50:19 -0500 Subject: Campaign law fears proving well-founded >=A0The Hill >=A0Wednesday, March 5, 2003 > >=A0The Right View >=A0By David Keene > >=A0Campaign law fears proving well-founded > > >=A0Some suggest that Sen. John McCain's "Bipartisan Campaign= Reform Act of 2002" represents a threat to free speech and the= unfettered political discourse so necessary to the functioning= of a free society. The Arizona Republican has dismissed them as= cranks and extremists who are "lying" about what is in the= legislation. > >=A0Yet anyone who has taken the time to read the regulations the= Federal Election Commission is putting together to give effect= to its strictures can only conclude that the fears of McCain=92s= critics have been well founded from the beginning. > >=A0These fears seem to me to be fully justified when one looks at= recently promulgated rules on what are known as "coordinated= public communications." You and I will continue to have a= constitutional right to express our views on public policy= issues in McCain's brave new world, but we=92d better be careful= lest what we say reaches too many people within 120 days of any= primary or general election. > >=A0During this period any public communication that reaches 500= people in an area in which a candidate is running can be ruled a= coordinated public communication if it is made by an individual= or organization that has had a discussion with the candidate,= any one associated with the candidate, or is in contact with or= assisted by any of his agents or anyone associated with his= political party or any vendor, employee or independent= contractor who has been associated with the candidate, his= campaign or political party. > >=A0The "communication" doesn't have to urge the election or defeat= of the candidate. All it has to do is mention either the= candidate or the candidate's party to cross the line. And if it= does cross the line, fines and even jail time may result. > >=A0This is dangerous stuff. To see just how dangerous, consider= the following possible scenario: > >=A0As next year's primaries approach, a vacancy opens up on the= U.S. Supreme Court. President Bush nominates a conservative. One= of Sen. John Edward's (D-N.C.) staffers suggests to Ralph Neas,= head of People for the American Way, that a lot of senators'= feet will need to be held to the fire if the president=92s choice= is to be defeated. > >=A0Neas's group swings into action and orders a television,= advertising and direct mail campaign aimed at sinking the= nominee. A firm that does or has done some work for the= Democratic Party prepares the ads.. The firm that buys the time= to put the ads on the air is also purchasing time for one of the= Democratic candidates for president. > >=A0The likelihood that all of these things could happen is quite= high. The consultants in the firms doing work for advocacy= groups often also do work for parties and candidates or employ= people that have done such work in the past. Washington, after= all, is a pretty small town and just about everyone has the= kinds of connections McCain=92s witch hunters will be empowered to= look for under the new rules. In fact, finding a competent firm= that hasn=92t done this work might prove well nigh impossible. > >=A0As the ads run, the Federal Election Committee notices them,= deems them "coordinated," and declares that the money Neas is= spending is an in-kind contribution to the Edwards campaign.= This subjects Neas to criminal penalties. The IRS goes after his= organization for blatantly illegal corporate contributions. > >=A0Sound bad? Well, it is, but if the authors of this legislation= have it their way, it could be even worse. > >=A0Reps. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) and Marty Meehan (D-Mass.) want the= courts to throw out these regulations -- not because they are= too restrictive, but rather because they are "too narrow." They= want to eliminate the 120-day threshold so that the government= can take action whenever a candidate of officeholder is= mentioned. > >=A0Under their interpretation of the law they helped McCain write,= it might not even be necessary to name the candidate or the= party to find oneself on the wrong side of the feds. > >=A0Indeed they are asking the district court to rule that simply= the discussion of an issue that might have some impact on the= outcome of a race should trigger criminal penalties even if no= actual candidates are named. If this isn=92t designed to shut down= public discussion of policy options nothing ever has been. > >=A0If the three-judge panel that has already heard arguments on= the constitutionality of McCain=92s pet law fails to knock it= down, the First Amendment we learned about in school will cease= to exist. > >=A0The sad fact is that neither Congress nor Bush stood up for the= constitution when they had the chance. So now it is up to the= courts. > >=A0Maybe that=92s why judges are so darned important. > > >=A0David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, is a= managing associate with the Carmen Group, a D.C.-based= governmental affairs firm -- =A0Bob Armstrong -- http://CoSy.com -- 212-285-1864 Ultimate Computing Environment : =A0http://cosy.com/K/CoSy.htm A WTC vision : http://cosy.com/CoSy/ConicAllConnect/ =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A02003/03/05 12:03:36 PM