MENTIONING the President in paid political ads will be ILLEGAL as of 7/31?

Can the RNC ban MoveOn.org ads under a little-known "gag rule" buried in McCain-Feingold and recently upheld by a vaguely worded Supreme Court decision?

Apparently, they can. The AFL-CIO claims that under a little-known provision in the new campaign finance laws, "from July 31, 2004 until the election, it will be a crime ... to pay to broadcast any 'reference' to the President ... anywhere in the United States." (Link below.)

Nat Hentoff has written a very disturbing column about this bizarre issue - which apparently is NOT getting covered anywhere else in the media:


Supreme Court's Gag Rule on Us
'The Powerful Have Only Gotten More Powerful'
by Nat Hentoff (The Village Voice - NYC)

In covering the Supreme Court's historic cutting down of the First Amendment right of individual Americans who belong to independent organizations to get their views expressed, the press has greatly underestimated the effect of the court's banning these groups' television and radio ads close to federal primaries and general elections.

The rule now is that these ads on social and political issues cannot be on the air within 30 days of a primary or 60 days before a general election. The law will be violated, says the Supreme Court, even if "advertisements do not urge the viewer {or listener} to vote for or against a candidate in so many words {but} they are no less clearly intended to influence the election."

What do "in so many words" and "clearly intended" mean? This is the kind of scrambled reasoning, leading to opaque language, that has become customary on this clueless high court...

Let me know if you've seen what follows anywhere in the media—or in the majority decision of the Supreme Court, in this case. Independent organizations—not tied to political parties—wanting to place broadcast ads criticizing George W. Bush will have these obstacles, as detailed by the AFL-CIO:

"Beginning 30 days before the first primary or caucus . . . December 14, 2003 . . . Section 203 {of McCain-Feingold} will criminalize broadcast references to the President in a series of geographic blackouts that will continuously ripple through the Nation, blocking every broadcast outlet, wherever located, whose signal can reach 50,000 persons in an upcoming primary or caucus state until June 8, 2004.

"This blackout will become national in scope on July 31, 30 days before the August 30-September 2 Republican National Convention . . . and it will then continue without interruption throughout the remaining 60 days until the November 2 election. Thus, from July 31, 2004 until the election, it will be a crime for a union, corporation, or incorporated non-profit organization to pay to broadcast any 'reference' to the President by 'name,' 'photograph,' 'drawing' or other 'unambiguous' means anywhere in the United States."

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0404/hentoff.php


Is the news item below an example of this new campaign-finance law in action? Can the RNC now legally ban MoveOn.org ads?

RNC tells TV stations not to run anti-Bush ads
GOP committee says MoveOn.org's spots are illegally financed

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Republican National Committee is warning television stations across the country not to run ads from the MoveOn.org Voter Fund that criticize President Bush, charging that the left-leaning political group is paying for them with money raised in violation of the new campaign-finance law.

One of the ads in question, called "Child's Play," ends with the tag line, "Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1 trillion deficit?"

. . .

"As a broadcaster licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, you have a responsibility to the viewing public, and to your licensing agency, to refrain from complicity in any illegal activity," said the RNC's chief counsel, Jill Holtzman Vogel, in a letter sent to about 250 stations Friday {March 5, 2004}.

. . .

Vogel insisted that the RNC's problem with the ads stemmed from their funding, not their content. "I write not because of the misleading allegations contained in the advertisement, which will be answered in due time, but because running this advertisement breaks the law," Vogel's letter said.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/07/moveon.ads/index.html

Could it pass then? BTW, this ban looks unconstitutional to me.

is it legal to refer to him as resident bush*?

smirk-boy?
the chimp?
the Hocus-POTUS?
The Tumble-weed kid?

and John Mcain to get their input on this,

can continue to blast people by name even though the air time is paid for by corporations. If so, could Moveon adds be recast as program material and be "brought to you" by organizations selling, say, pot holders or used computer keyboards?

As Justice Anthony Kennedy, dissenting, wrote, by way of example, "{The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act} makes it a felony for an environmental group to broadcast an ad, within sixty days of an election, exhorting the public to protest a Congressman's impending vote to permit logging in national forests."

http://www.walloworld.com/triggerman/archives/000818.html

One should cast an eye of suspicion on those who stand to gain the most from this legislation, namely the media and elected officials. What campaign finance reform restricts are public expressions of alternative sources of information and viewpoints besides those which dominate the media. In essence, the power of media increases one-hundred fold since they would have a monopoly on what to print or broadcast during the months before an election. This time period is the crucial point in a campaign; a sizeable portion of voters often do not make up their minds until a few days before Election Day. In addition, incumbents would have an easier time staying in office since they, unlike their opponents, are not restricted by campaign finance laws in what they can say or do in their official capacities, which makes news and garners them free publicity.

http://www.tuftsprimarysource.org/issues/20/09/campaign.finance.html

O'Stupid and the rest of holly rollys who support boy god bush?

If that's they way it will be, they must also close down all the evangelical loopholds, who actually preach politics and not religion.

have huge demonstrations against little man bush. We can hold up thousands of 'FuckBush' signs.

can schrub talk about himself?

this could lead to some interesting creative ads.

call him mr x. use a blue dot instead of his face.

I don't know if it bans talking about a candidate you support, or just bans talking about a candidate you oppose.

I've only run across ONE article on this (by Hentoff in the Village Voice - he's often a "lone voice crying in the wilderness" on many neglected topics).

I don't see why it should be ILLEGAL for MoveOn.org to raise money in small donations and then develop and run political ads before the elections.

But apparently this is exactly what McCain-Feingold and the Supreme Court decision do: They make it ILLEGAL to talk about candidates and their records in the 60 days before an election, for unions, corporations and non-profits.

From July 31, 2004 until the election, it will be a crime for a union, corporation, or incorporated non-profit organization to pay to broadcast any 'reference' to the President by 'name,' 'photograph,' 'drawing' or other 'unambiguous' means anywhere in the United States.

(from original post)

Sounds like it means you couldn't even refer to "Mr. X" or use a "blue dot". As long as it's clear whom you're referring to, the ad would be ILLEGAL - a FELONY.

from doing so, does it? power to the people!

Can't "run on your record" if you can't mention yourself?

With this president's record, it's a major advantage ...

That this only applies to the president and no one else?

n/t

The new "gag rule" makes it "a federal crime for a group of citizens to broadcast ads that discuss the record of a candidate for federal office within 30 days of a primary or within 60 days of a general election. Incumbents are more likely than challengers to have a voting record that ordinary citizens might like to criticize so no wonder many call this measure an 'incumbent protection act'."

http://www.sauerbreyonline.com/campaignReform.htm

Those who think the Constitution really means it when it says, "Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech", are stunned .... {Conservative} columnist George Will called this issue "the most pivotal moment in the history of American freedom" over the past 35 years.

http://www.sauerbreyonline.com/campaignReform.htm

Maybe Dems need to target the admin, instead.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1447

Myth #1: "Shays-Meehan is constitutional."

Myth #2: "Congress need not consider the 'complicated' constitutional issues."

Myth #3: "Only right-wingers and partisan Republicans oppose Shays-Meehan."

...

They want to run hundreds of millions of dollars attacking Kerry and they want to stifle any opposing veiw. Thats so republican.

And its Fascist

Then it's gonna be "goodbye democracy".

Maybe that's why the Bush people are getting so sloppy already - lying and stonewalling and flipflopping and running horrible ads. They know it doesn't matter HOW bad they are - the "fix" is in.

Or it applies to both candidates but they can't talk about each other?Did I read this right?

So, corporations have the right to "free speech" by buying candidates, but candidates don't have the right to "free speech" by discussing each other?

Bev

I guess you couldn't mention Kerry's record as a Senator - nor Bush's record as President.

What is freaking me out about this is that it sounds like a MAJOR change to how our elections are conducted - and yet I've only run across ONE article on it - the article by Nat Hentoff above.

How could something so important slip under the radar? "McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance" has been on everyone's lips for the past few years - could it be that the "fine print" in this law will wreak major havoc on our elections?

By the sound of it, the beneficiaries in this case are:

(1) the media - they get to continue broadcasting their own viewpoints through their own outlets, while it would be illegal for "outsiders" (private citizens and groups) to air their views.

(2) incumbents - a person who has a record as a politician would be immune from having that record examined or discussed 60 days before an election.

Why isn't the press covering this major change? People on both the right and the left are saying this law could be unconstitutional - and yet I haven't heard "boo" about it except Nat Hentoff's article.

...being a Senator.

n/t

It's legal to refer to Bush as pondscum and/or Dictator, his actual title, <g>. Seriously, they should ignore the law, and bring it to the national debate when they are arrested or sued by the Bush regime.

-Lori Price

It just appears that the Repubs scheduled their convention with the new laws in mind, so as to create an uninterrupted block of time before the election where mentioning Bush would be illegal. Kerry is vulnerable until 30 days after the blackout on Bush.

Whether you're on the left or the right, the idea of making paid political speech illegal 60 days before an election doesn't seem like such a good idea - it doesn't even seem to be constitutional.

As one Freeper puts it: "This is the first time I can remember rooting for the Liberals and Big Unions on any issue."

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1064379/posts

What is going on here? Is this new law constitutional?

Will it be illegal for me (or George Soros) to take out a page in the New York Times supporting or criticizing a candidate this fall?

Who wrote this new law?

Does anyone have a copy of what the McCain-Feingold law says, and a copy of the Supreme Court decision (and dissenting opinions) which have upheld it?

Why isn't this major new law being covered in the press? Even if the media would love to have a monopoly on political speech in the 60 days before an election - wouldn't they also be worried about losing all that advertising revenue from political campaigns?

What the hell is going on here? First they rig our voting machines with crappy software that can't add and won't print a paper ballot - and now they're telling us we can't TALK ABOUT the candidates on OUR airwaves in the 60 days before an election?

Here's some more info and analysis. This is a controversial NEW LAW (McCain-Feingold) and the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Dec 2003 that the law does NOT violate the First Amendment - but in reality, it DOES.

= = =

On December 10, 2003, in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court by a vote of 5 to 4 decided that the major provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (popularly known as McCain-Feingold) do not violate the First Amendment mandate that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." Specifically, the Court approved provisions of the Campaign Finance Act that make it a criminal offense:

1. For anyone to give "soft money" to political parties, i.e., contributions not earmarked for the campaigns of particular candidates and thus not subject to the contribution limits of the previous attempt to control campaign spending: the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 (the 1974 Act); or

2. For corporations, both profit and non-profit, and labor unions to sponsor TV ads that mention a candidate for federal office within 60 days before a general election or 30 days of a primary.

On their face, both provisions limit speech, because political communication costs money. If the Sierra Club or the Apple Computer Corporation or the American Civil Liberties Union or the AFL-CIO wish to participate in campaign debate by paying for a TV ad linking a named candidate to his position on a particular issue, McCain-Feingold prohibits them from doing so during the most crucial period of the campaign - that is, during the 30 to 60 days immediately prior to the election.

...

We are left, then, after some 100 pages of the majority opinion, with an acceptance by the Court of considerable government regulation of precisely that kind of speech that needs to be free because it is of such paramount concern to a constitutional democracy.

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/explore/Viewpoints/McConnellvFederalElectionCommissionABadFirstAmendmentBargain.shtml

...and what I understood is that the 60-day blackout period applies to all soft-money groups.

Only the candidates themselves can run ads that directly mention a candidate. I thought his was one of the most important parts of McCain-Feingold bill. They wanted to make sure politicians couldn't use the soft-money groups as a loophole.

Every ad after July 31st should include Bush or Kerry saying that they approved the ad.

I'll call in the morning to se what I can find out .

Banning ads which mention the president would include
bush talking about himself correct ...

I mean how is this worded ?

http://www.fecwatch.org/law/court/mcconnelltable.asp

Note the section where it talks about "sham" issue ads:

Prohibits corporations and labor unions from using soft money to pay for "electioneering communications" -- broadcast ads that mention a federal candidate or officeholder within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election and are targeted to that person's constitutuents
(certain exceptions apply).

It sounds as if the innocuous MoveOn.org ad (which criticized Bush for running up a trillion-dollar deficit with his tax cuts) might be ILLEGAL under this wording.

(Note to moderators - it's ok to quote many paragraphs here - this is a legal opinion, in the public domain.)

http://hoystory.blogspot.com/2003_12_01_hoystory_archive.html#107112853047754009

In the case of McConnell vs. FEC (Federal Elections Commission), which UPHELD the McCain-Feingold law's prohibition of paid political speech 60 days before an election, Scalia wrote in his DISSENT:

This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography ... tobacco advertising ... dissemination of illegally intercepted communications ... and sexually explicit cable programming ... would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is mant to protect: the right to criticize the government. For that is what the most offensive provisions of this legislation are all about. We are governed by Congress, and this legislation prohibits the criticism of Members of Congress by those entities most capable of giving such criticism loud voice: national political parties and corporations, both of the commercial and the not-for-profit sort. It forbids pre-election criticism of incumbents by corporations, even not-for-profit corporations, by use of their general funds; and forbids national party use of "soft" money to fund "issue ads" that incumbents find so offensive.

...

In any economy operated on even the most rudimentary principles of division of labor, effective public communication requires the speaker to make use of the services of others. An author may write a novel, but he will seldom publish and distribute it himself. A freelance reporter may write a story, but he will rarely edit, print, and deliver it to subscribers. To a government bent on suppressing speech, this mode of organization presents opportunities: Control any cog in the machine, and you can halt the whole apparatus.

...

What good is the right to print books without a right to buy works from authors? Or the right to publish newspapers without the right to pay deliverymen? The right to speak would be largely ineffective if it did not include the right to engage in financial transactions that are the incidents of its exercise.

...

It should be obvious, then, that a law limiting the amount a person can spend to broadcast his political views is a direct restriction on speech. That is no different from a law limiting the amount a newspaper can pay its editorial staff or the amount a charity can pay its leafletters. It is equally clear that a limit on the amount a candidate can raise from any one individual for the purpose of speaking is also a direct limitation on speech. That is no different from a law limiting the amount a publisher can accept from any one shareholder or lender, or the amount a newspaper can charge any one advertiser or customer.

...

The freedom to associate with others for the dissemination of ideas -- not just by singing or speaking in unison, but by pooling financial resources for expressive purposes -- is part of the freedom of speech.

...

While the Government's briefs and arguments before this Court focused on the horrible "appearance of corruption," the most passionate floor statements during the debates on this legislation pertained to so-called attack ads, which the Constitution surely protects, but which Members of Congress analogized to "crack cocaine," 144 Cong. Rec. S868 (Feb. 24, 1998) (remarks of Sen. Daschle), "drive-by shooting{s}," id., at S879 (remarks of Sen. Durbin), and "air pollution" 143 Cong. Rec. 20505 (1997) (remarks of Sen. Dorgan). There is good reason to believe that the ending of negative campaign ads was the principal attraction of the legislation.

...

Perhaps voters do detest these 30-second spots -- though I suspect they detest even more hour-long campaign-debate interruptions of their favorite entertainment programming. Evidently, however, these ads do persuade voters, or else they would not be so routinely used by sophisticated politicians of all parties. The point, in any event, is that it is not the proper role of those who govern us to judge which campaign speech has "substance" and "depth" (do you think it might be that which is least damaging to incumbents?) and to abridge the rest.

...

All campaign spending in the United States, including state elections, ballot initiatives, and judicial elections, has been estimated at $3.9 billion for 2000... which was a year that "shattered spending and contribution records," ... Even taking this last, larger figure as the benchmark, it means that Americans spent about half as much electing all their Nation's officials, state and federal, as they spent on movie tickets ($7.8 billion); about a fifth as much as they spent on cosmetics and perfume ($18.8 billion); and about a sixth as much as they spent on pork (the nongovernmental sort) ($22.8 billion). ...If our democracy is drowning from this much spending, it cannot swim.

...

The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech.


= = =

My two cents' worth regarding "negative campaigning": Look up "approval voting" and "Condorcet voting". These are the best ways to eliminate negative campaigning, because they essentially allow voters to "transfer" their votes from one candidate another, making it counterproductive for one candidate to try to build himself up by dragging down his opponents.

Corporations and unions can't sponsor ads:

http://www.cfinst.org/eguide/update/electioneering.html

but unincorporated 501s and 527s can, as well as PACs. So, as long as an association is created for the express purpose of funding these types of ads, is funded entirely by contributions from individuals (and maintains a donor list for the FEC), it's legal. Also, it seems any fatcat willing to solely finance an ad would be allowed to do so.

Scalia also points out that among the corporations banned from running ads during the blackout period are the NAACP, Sierra Club, NRA -- not what the general public imagines when they hear "corporate."

http://hoystory.blogspot.com/2003_12_01_hoystory_archive.html#107112853047754009

http://www.moveon.org/about/

As far as I know, PACs are exempt from the blackout laws.

so he can get his face on TV right up to the election, stage photo-ops, etc.. I think the Dems will be disadvantaged by this clause.

McCain-Feingold was written (and passed) to, in part, regulate the use of soft money in political campaigns. The law ststes that soft money may not be used to campaign for or against any specific candidate.

The MoveOn ads, much as I like them, DO target a specific political candidate. If the Republicans did the same thing and targeted Kerry, those ads would be illegal also.

This cuts both ways equally. The article in the original post was written to solicit an emotion, not present the facts in an unbiased manner.