Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Search / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

Undermining Our 1^st Amendment Rights

By Richard Lewis (continued from last week)

Under the campaign laws, ordinary citizens, candidates, political organizations, and even political parties become second class citizens, bound by the regulations which restrict their rights to raise money to pay for paper, ink or air time to communicate their political opinions, while the institutional press retains the freedoms that once belonged to all of us.

Election regulatory agencies require a candidate’s campaign treasurer to file complex reports, on time, and under penalty of fine. The campaign's treasurer also risks unknown legal costs when a candidate's campaign committee is accused of violating election laws. Finding someone who is both qualified and willing to be a treasurer is not easy, and that helps protect an incumbent from competition. It also limits voters’ choices at the polls! The same risks apply to the treasurer of a political action committee, thereby limiting the scope of serious issues that an incumbent might otherwise be required to debate.

The commercial media did not throw its support behind federal election reforms that evolved in the 1970's from Watergate until they were exempted from those regulations.  Their 'institutional press exemption' can be found at 2 U.S.C. 431(9)(B)(i).

Election laws passed during the 1970's and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act legislation, which recently became law, violate the Constitutional principle of equal protection, because they no longer allow individual citizens, political organizations, or political parties the same "Free Press Rights" to communicate ideas as the corporate mainstream media.  Under the new BCRA regulations, politicians and the commercial media will have almost total control over the debate, and citizens, who attempt to distribute political handbills about serious issues (that are not on the agenda of the commercial media) within 60 days of an election, could spend up to five years in jail.

The term "regulated community" in regard to "free press rights" did not exist in law prior to the 1970's.  The concept of a "regulated community" is a radical departure and an unconstitutional change in our Republic, which has occurred without going through the arduous process of actually amending the Constitution.  How can our 1^st Amendment Rights be in a constant state of flux?  Are Constitutional amendments no longer required in order to change our Constitutional Rights?

The unregulated 'institutional press' often presents an argument that it is merely acting as an agent or surrogate for ordinary citizens, who benefit from news it provides.  However, the 'institutional press' does not act as the public's agent or citizens’ surrogate when it routinely and selectively withholds information or news coverage that is at odds with its own political agenda!

The first Supreme Court challenge ever, in defense of the free press rights of ordinary citizens is currently before the Supreme Court in Paul v. FEC. This is clearly NEWS, and media coverage of this case would help Citizens understand the serious constitutional issues involved.  Unfortunately, it has received little, or no coverage in the 'institutional press'.

According to Congresswoman Anne Northup (R) 3rd District of Kentucky, 170 foreign-owned newspapers operating in the United States are exempt from the federal election laws that would cause a private individual to be thrown in jail for distributing his flyers.  Our federal election laws have allowed as many as 170 foreign owned newspapers to enjoy unrestricted freedom to endorse candidates in their editorial columns, but those same election laws restrict the Republican, Democratic and Independent parties' Rights to own and operate newspapers for the purpose of endorsing their candidates.  2 U.S.C. 431 (9)(B)(i).

Why have NBC news, Fox news, The Courier-Journal and other media avoided exposing the press exemption enjoyed by 170 foreign owned newspapers operating in these United States?  Do they want to avoid domestic and foreign political debate about their investments and/or ownership of foreign television and newspaper corporations? [see page 335 Who Will Tell The People paperback by Willam Greider ]

General Electric and others enjoy 1st Amendment rights only because their businesses are recognized as artificial corporate legal persons that are members of the institutional press.  But corporations have not always had superior rights to people.  In fact, corporations were not even recognized as legal persons in the United States prior to 1896. [ pages 347-359 Who Will Tell The People paperback by Willam Greider ]

In its famous Marbury v. Madison decision, the United States Supreme Court determined that the United States Constitution can only be amended by a constitutional amendment under Article V Section 1.  The Supreme Court also has held repeatedly that any law that is unconstitutional is not to be given effect.  “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury Vs. Madison, 5 US  137, 174, 176, (1803). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda Vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.  “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425, p. 442.

Has the 1st Amendment been amended? The Republican and Democratic parties owned and operated newspapers during most of our nation's history, and they used their newspapers to endorse their candidates. Are we to believe that previous generations of Americans misunderstood the 1st Amendment, or are we to believe that our Constitution can be amended without the required, but difficult, Article V section. 1 Constitutional Amendment process so as to deprive the political parties of the right to operate such newspapers today?

A foreign citizen is not eligible to vote in these United States, and a foreign chartered corporation, is, for the purposes of law, a single foreign person.  Are we also to believe that the United States Constitution guarantees foreign citizens, and foreign chartered corporations, unrestricted 1st Amendment Rights, while those same Rights are denied to average U.S. Citizens and/or their political parties? http://amendment10.tripod.com/Ann4.htm  You do not have to be a Constitutional scholar to understand that the 1st Amendment was written for the primary purpose of guaranteeing the "RIGHTS" of living United States Citizens.

Had this issue received serious news coverage, then citizens and their elected representatives might have understood what was happening when the BCRA law was being passed.  However, the 'institutional press' did not expose these serious Constitutional issues, and Congress, which was under no pressure from uninformed constituents to resolve the issue, passed the new federal election laws. Thus, Congress avoided the issue and voted itself an incumbent protection law, entirely with the help of the self-serving 'institutional press'.

The so called Election reform laws were supposed to protect ordinary Citizens from special interests, but who, or what, are those special interests? When any living Citizen or corporate person attempts to gain advantage, through special legislation, tax breaks or by seeking exclusive franchises and/or exemptions from laws, or arbitrary power over others for themselves, then that person or corporate entity is properly defined as a special interest.  On the other hand, when any person insists that laws must apply equally to all persons, that person cannot be defined as having or being a special interest.  There can be no question that the institutional press is a special interest and has avoided reporting about the Paul v. FEC lawsuit and the Constitutional issues involved in order to avoid exposing its 'institutional press exemption' to the public's scrutiny, ridicule and challenge.

The Federal Election Commission was not chartered until 1975. At age 55, I am often amazed by young journalists, political scientists, and some lawyers, who find it hard to believe that the Republican and Democratic parties owned and operated commercial newspapers prior to 1974. These young people, having been deprived of historical facts, seem to be even more surprised that prior to 1974 it was not necessary to register with a  federal agency before distributing political leaflets endorsing or opposing candidates or promoting political ideas. That was the America in which I grew up!

I believe it is important that we act now to preserve the 1st Amendment freedoms of our future generations.

What can you do to restore our 1^st Amendment rights?

Citizens who understand this issue should begin encouraging family and friends to call, or write to, their United States Senators and their Congressman and demand that they delete or repeal 2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i).  

Citizens should also begin calling or writing to employees of the 'institutional press' and demand that they inform their readers and viewers about the Paul v. FEC lawsuit. Suggest to them that it is time for them to use our public airwaves and copious amounts of their paper and ink to expose these issues.

The 'institutional press' has limited capacity switchboards, and they must rely on the confidence of their readers and viewers for ratings that justify their advertisement fees. Be civil but be firm, and make it clear that you are serious and will call again next week if they do not respond to your reasonable request.

Don't just take it from me!

Click here to see support for the foregoing article:

(Editor’s note:  Richard Lewis has not only studied the election laws extensively; he has also been a victim of those laws.  After his campaign for U.S. Congress as an independent candidate, he was accused of “coordination” and spent many years defending himself.)

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest / Search / White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN