Jefferson Review
"Your Liberty is Our Interest"
Home / Archives / Search / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar
|
|
Jefferson Review |
|
|
"Your Liberty is Our Interest" |
August 16, 2004 | |
|
Home / Archives / Search / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar |
||
|
|
Richard Lewis inquires about taxpayers being forced to fund KET
He asks: What compelling state interest justifies taxing Citizens so that Al Smith, Bill Goodman, Jim Lehrer and John McLaughlin can enjoy a broadcast platform that is exempt from election laws which restrict every other Citizen’s political speech? The following are a series of letters to and from Richard Lewis, in which he challenges the constitutionality of spending Kentucky taxpayer money ($14,500,000 per year) to support political speech on KET. His original letter to the state was passed on to Donna Moore of KET for response, which raises the question of whether she represents the state, since KET is supposed to be independent. Moore said KET tries to keep its political speech balanced. Balanced according to whom? Who approves what views will be supported by the taxpayers? Lewis says the question is the constitutionality of forcing taxpayers to provide a platform for others while they are forbidden by law from using the airwaves to promote their own views.
From: Richard Lewis 454-3707 in Louisville
Attention: Editor Jefferson Review
Included below in descending order.
[1] Donna Moore's email to Richard Lewis in which she states: Your letter to Governor Fletcher about programming on KET was forwarded to me for response.
[2] My email to Donna Moore asking if she is responding in an official capacity for Governor Fletcher. [Donna has not responded yet]
[3] My original letter to Carolyn A. Ammerman with the Kentucky Policy Division.
[4] My Additional Legal Background email to Carolyn A. Ammerman with the Kentucky Policy Division.
From:
"Donna Moore" <DMoore@ket.org> From: Richard Lewis Louisville, Kentucky 502-454-3707
Attention:
Kentucky Educational Television
Is your response, an "official response" on behalf of Governor Fletcher?
My
letter was sent to Carolyn A.Ammerman, in the Kentucky Policy Division in
regard to serious
It is
my understanding that constitutional issues can only be resolved by duly elected
or appointed
Mrs. Moore, if your response is an "official response" on behalf of Governor Fletcher, it does not address any of the Constitutional issues that were included in my letter to Carolyn A.Ammerman, in the Kentucky Policy Division.
30
From: Richard Lewis Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 10:32 AM Subject: How does Kentucky justify Unrestricted Political Speach For Some But Not All Kentucky Citizens
Attention: Carolyn A. Ammerman Kentucky Policy Division
Our Grievance:
Citizens whose political speech is restricted by both state and federal election laws are forced to pay state and federal taxes to provide other Citizens an exempt broadcast platform for their unrestricted political speech. Our "Free Press" argument is not "Liberal or Conservative" and it is not about "Equal Means" to communicate, it is about "Equal Rights" to communicate political ideas and opinions, which is clearly guaranteed by our "Kentucky Bill of Rights"! I recieved a call from the new program director at KET last week at the request of someone on Govenor Fletcher's staff. The new KET program director did not try to defend their election exemption advantage.
He asked what I wanted.
Please visit www.takebackamerica.tv for additional information. How does Kentucky justify Unrestricted Political Speech For Some But Not All Kentucky Citizens Modern election laws attempt to transfer unrestricted political speech from people to newspapers and broadcast stations. How does Kentucky justify forcing taxpayers to create an unrestricted political speech platform for Al Smith, Bill Goodman, Jim Lehrer and John McLaughlin etc.... are their political views the "approved political views" of our state and federal governments? Their "Right" to communicate their political views is restricted by state and federal election laws like every other Citizen except when their views are "broadcast" on KET and other state educational networks, paid for by our state and federal tax dollars. The question stated above should be taken seriously. Since the FEC was chartered in 1975 unrestricted political speech has existed only for commercial and public broadcast stations and newspapers. [ Read 2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) ] Kentucky Taxpayers provide most of the tax dollars that fund KET.... about $14,500,000 KET receives only $700,000 for its operational cost from federal taxes. What compelling state interest: Justifies taxing Citizens so that Al Smith, Bill Goodman, Jim Lehrer and John McLaughlin can enjoy a broadcast platform that is exempt from election laws which restrict every other Citizens political speech? Kentucky Bill of Rights Section 1, All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: Fourth: The right of freely communicating their thoughts and opinions. Kentucky Bill of Rights Section 8: Printing presses shall be free to every person who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the General Assembly or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. Every person may freely and fully speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. Tax supported public broadcast networks are not required to register with state or federal election commissions, "can receive donations from corporations" and individuals in addition to our tax dollars, are not required to file financial reports with federal or state election commissions and can not be accused of coordinating with the committee of a political candidate.
Citizens who spend more than $250.00 to influence federal elections are required to register with the federal election commission, "can not receive donations from corporations", are required to file complex financial reports and can be accused of coordinating with the committee of a political candidate. Accusations often result in large even ruinous legal fees! Kentucky state election laws and restrictions are similar to federal election laws discussed above. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act "BCRA" "It imposes an unprecedented blanket restriction on issue advertisements that refer to candidates in “blackout” periods 60 days before elections and 30 days before primaries." http://www.mediainstitute.org/BCRA_cmnts.html When government exempts some Citizens from restrictions that apply to all other Citizens it is by definition "approving their speech" the state is in fact providing a "free press license" for those who are exempted! Restricting freedom of the press for some but not all Kentucky Citizens violates numerous sections of the Kentucky Constitution. [ Refer to Sections, 1, 3, 6, 8, 177 and 195 ] http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/Legresou/Constitu/list2.htm How does Kentucky justify forcing taxpayers to provide Al Smith, Bill Goodman, Jim Lehrer and John McLaughlin a broadcast station on which their political television programs appear? Al Smith's "Comment on Kentucky", Bill Goodman's "Kentucky Tonight", Jim Lehrer's News Hour and John McLaughlin's "McLaughlin Group", are not part of Kentucky elementary and high school curriculum. These programs are aired on KET for a "general public audience" and compete with commercial broadcast networks for corporate advertisement dollars. If the state of Kentucky claims that "it has no control over non educational KET programs" how does our state government justify our tax dollars for use of its broadcast facilities for these programs? Every commercial television channel in Kentucky provides Citizens a newsroom number for news tips and ideas 365 days a year. Commercial broadcasters provide more opportunity for public input than KET and they do not ask for our tax dollars to do it! In the Matter of The Coalition National Republican Congressional Committee, et al. MUR 4624 STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD COMMISSIONER BRADLEY A. SMITH
Excerpts below are from Statement of Record named above:
"When a person decides to make independent political expenditures, he opens himself up to two potential burdens under the Act. The first burden is to report those independent expenditures in excess of $250.00. See 2 U.S.C. § 434(c). The second is to defend against allegations that the advocacy was somehow authorized by or coordinated with a candidate which, if true, would lead to still greater limits on the persons political activity. See 2 U.S.C. § 431(17). Respondents can spend substantial sums defending themselves against such allegations, and this possibility will cause many speakers to avoid engaging in what ought to be constitutionally protected speech." "Despite the fact that the Commission has now found no violations in this case, I strongly suspect that the original complainant, the Democratic National Committee, considers its complaint to have been a success. The complaint undoubtedly forced their political opponents to spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in legal fees, and to devote countless hours of staff, candidate, and executive time to responding to discovery and handling legal matters. Despite our finding that their activities were not coordinated and so did not violate the Act, I strongly suspect that the huge costs imposed by the investigation will discourage similar participation by these and other groups in the future."[5] "We cannot fault the complainant DNC for pursuing its political goals through the legal tools made available to it, but nor can we on the Commission blind ourselves to the fact that the substantial majority of the complaints filed with the Commission are filed by political opponents of those they name as respondents. These complaints are usually filed as much to harass, annoy, chill, and dissuade their opponents from speaking as to vindicate any public interest in preventing "corruption or the appearance of corruption."[6] This knowledge makes it particularly important that we be sensitive to the possibility that our interpretations of the Act can, and sometimes do, chill what is and ought to be constitutionally protected political speech." S. Supreme Court GROSJEAN v. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233 (1936)297 U.S. 233
GROSJEAN, Sup'r of Public
Accounts of Louisiana
We think that the ordinance is invalid on its face. Whatever the motive which induced its adoption, its character is such that it strikes at the very foundation of the freedom of the press by subjecting it to license and censorship. The struggle for the freedom of the press was primarily directed against the power of the licensor. It was against that power that John Milton directed his assault by his 'Appeal for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing.' And the liberty of the press became initially a right to publish 'without a license what formerly could be published only with one.' 1 While this freedom from previous restraint upon publication cannot be regarded as exhausting the guaranty of liberty, the prevention of that restraint was a leading purpose in the adoption of the [303 U.S. 444, 452] constitutional provision. See Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 , 27 S.Ct. 556, 10 Ann.Cas. 689; Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 , 713-716, 51 S.Ct. 625, 630; Grosjean v. American Press Company, 297 U.S. 233, 245 , 246 S., 56 S.Ct. 444, 447. Legislation of the type of the ordinance in question would restore the system of license and censorship in its baldest form. We think that the ordinance is invalid on its face. Whatever the motive which induced its adoption, its character is such that it strikes at the very foundation of the freedom of the press by subjecting it to license and censorship. The struggle for the freedom of the press was primarily directed against the power of the licensor. It was against that power that John Milton directed his assault by his 'Appeal for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing.' And the liberty of the press became initially a right to publish 'without a license what formerly could be published only with one.' 1 While this freedom from previous restraint upon publication cannot be regarded as exhausting the guaranty of liberty, the prevention of that restraint was a leading purpose in the adoption of the [303 U.S. 444, 452] constitutional provision. See Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 , 27 S.Ct. 556, 10 Ann.Cas. 689; Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 , 713-716, 51 S.Ct. 625, 630; Grosjean v. American Press Company, 297 U.S. 233, 245 , 246 S., 56 S.Ct. 444, 447. Legislation of the type of the ordinance in question would restore the system of license and censorship in its baldest form. The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press in its connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. What we have had recent occasion to say with respect to the vital importance of protecting this essential liberty from every sort of infringement need not be repeated. Near v. Minnesota, supra; Grosjean v. American Press Company, supra; De Jonge v. Oregon, supra. 2 The ordinance cannot be saved because it relates to distribution and not to publication. 'Liberty of circulating is as essential to that freedom as liberty of publishing; indeed, without the circulation, the publication would be of little value.' Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 , 733. The license tax in Grosjean v. American Press Company, supra, was held invalid because of its direct tendency to restrict circulation. As the ordinance is void on its face, it was not necessary for appellant to seek a permit under it. She was [303 U.S. 444, 453] entitled to contest its validity in answer to the charge against her. Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U.S. 553, 562 , 51 S.Ct. 582, 585 The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Mills V. Alabama We come now to the merits. The First Amendment, which applies to the States through the Fourteenth, prohibits laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The question here is whether it abridges freedom of the press for a State to punish a newspaper editor for doing no more than publishing an editorial on election day urging people to vote a particular way in the election. We should point out at once that this question in no way involves the extent of a State's power to regulate conduct in and around the polls in order to maintain peace, order and decorum there. The sole reason for the charge that Mills violated the law is that he wrote and published an editorial on election day urging Birmingham voters to cast their votes in favor of changing their form of government. Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs. This of course includes discussions of candidates, structures and forms of government, the manner in which government is operated or should be operated, and all such [384 U.S. 214, 219] matters relating to political processes. The Constitution specifically selected the press, which includes not only newspapers, books, and magazines, but also humble leaflets and circulars, see Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 , to play an important role in the discussion of public affairs. Thus the press serves and was designed to serve as a powerful antidote to any abuses of power by governmental officials and as a constitutionally chosen means for keeping officials elected by the people responsible to all the people whom they were selected to serve. Suppression of the right of the press to praise or criticize governmental agents and to clamor and contend for or against change, which is all that this editorial did, muzzles one of the very agencies the Framers of our Constitution thoughtfully and deliberately selected to improve our society and keep it free. The Alabama Corrupt Practices Act by providing criminal penalties for publishing editorials such as the one here silences the press at a time when it can be most effective. It is difficult to conceive of a more obvious and flagrant abridgment of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press. ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Lewis Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 11:54 AM Subject: Additional Legal Background
Attention: Carolyn A Ammerman Kentucky Policy Division
The legal case history below certainly applies against Citizens being forced to pay state and federal taxes to provide an unrestricted free political speech platform to Al Smith, Bill Goodman, Bill Moyers, Jim Lehrer... etc. on KET.
Buckley v. Valeo It is argued, however, that the ancillary governmental interest in equalizing the relative ability of individuals and groups to influence the outcome of elections serves to justify the limitation on express advocacy of the election or defeat of candidates imposed by 608 (e) (1)'s expenditure ceiling. But the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in [424 U.S. 1, 49] order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed "to secure `the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources,'" and "`to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.'" New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, at 266, 269, quoting Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945), and Roth v. United States, 354 U.S., at 484 . The First Amendment's protection against governmental abridgment of free expression cannot properly be made to depend on a person's financial ability to engage in public discussion. Cf. Eastern R. Conf. v. Noerr Motors, 365 U.S. 127, 139 (1961). 55 [424 U.S. 1, 50]
|
|
Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest / Search / White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN |
To forward this article to a friend, go to your toolbar and click "file" > "send".
