Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

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

A Challenge to the Election Finance Laws

By Richard Lewis

A group of citizens has asked the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to decide whether they are required to register as a political action committee before they can pool and expend money endorsing a federal candidate.

Their argument hinges on the fact that our Bill Of Rights guarantees "Individual Rights". Under existing federal election law, a "wealthy individual" is allowed to spend an unlimited amount of his own money endorsing a federal candidate and that "wealthy individual" is allowed to register and report "their political activity" to the federal election commission under their "own name". The wealthy individual is not required to form a "political action committee" in order to exercise the "Rights" which were guarranteed to every individual! * a political action committee is guaranteed no rights!

One FEC commissioner has agreed that they believe the individuals are not required to form a political action committee, but the commission cannot make a decision because it needs four commissioners for a quorum and the Senate has refused to confirm enough commissioners to make up the required four! 

A prominent law professor who specializes in Campaign law and who strongly supports BCRA has said their argument has a good chance of succeeding!

This creates another problem! How can honest well meaning citizens participate in their political process when the federal agency that regulates / restricts the speech and press "RIGHTS" of every "Living American" cannot decide what the rules are?

Bradley Smith, who recently served as the Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, is acting as legal counsel for the individuals who would like to place television ads endorsing a presidential candidate during this 2008 election cycle!

The term "INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT AGENCY" should not exist in a Republic or a Democracy. By definition, such an agency would be accountable to no one -- "the very definition of a tyrant"! 

The FEC is obviously not operating as an independent government agency. The FEC has been crippled by squabbling between Republicans and Democrats who have refused to approve nominees that would provide the FEC with a quorum of commissioners who at least might give some form of confusing legalistic answer to the questions posed by the citizens mentioned above!

The FEC should actually have two Republican commissioners , two Democrat commissioners and at least two commissioners who are registered as independent or third party, as over 33% of the population are registered that way now! 

THE REAL MEANING of A Free Press

If the United States Supreme Court defined freedom of religion using the same logic that it has used to define a free press, only the church or synagogue "as an institution" would enjoy freedom of religion, not its members!

The so called "Press Exemption" found at 2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) is actually a press restriction placed on every "living person"!

Election laws have effectively transferred unrestricted "First Amendment Rights from [L]iving beings "We The People" to "legal persons" designated as newspaper and broadcast businesses.

For almost 184 years, "We The People" were free to pool our money to pay for yard signs and political handbills without the approval or permission of any federal agency. "We The People" were not required to deny our "individual rights" and form a political committee in order to communicate our political ideas and opinions! [1] 
       
Modern election laws force citizens to participate in our political process through a system of "limited collective rights" instead of our Constitutionally guaranteed system of "equal" and "unrestricted Individual Rights".

Citizens who pool their money to influence elections are restricted by election laws because they are not speaking or publishing their political opinions as employees of a newspaper or broadcast business!

Paper and ink are expensive. Why is using a "free press" with a "profit motive", for example a newspaper, funded by a "pool of stockholders’money" less likely to corrupt the political process than the use of a "free Press" by "individuals who pool their money" in an attempt to influence the political process because of their political convictions?  

I became a page to the Kentucky legislature at age 9 and I actually participated in our political process and exercised unrestricted First Amendment Rights as our Constitution intended for a period of almost 20 years prior to the charter of the Federal Election Commission in 1975. 

For a period of almost 20 years, I helped distribute political handbills and political yard signs that did not have federal disclaimers. Those political materials were paid for by citizens who chose to exercise their "equal and unrestricted" First Amendment Free Press Rights as individual [L]iving beings by pooling their money to pay the cost of political handbills and yard signs. 
 
      
      Our Constitution guaranteed every Citizen "Equal First Amendment Rights". 
 
There is absolutely no question that the First Amendment was written for the primary purpose of guaranteeing the "RIGHTS" of flesh and blood "living beings" not corporations! Corporations were not recognized as legal persons in the United States prior to 1886. [2]
 
The so called "Press Exemption" found at 2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) is actually a press restriction placed on  every "living person"!

Election laws have effectively transferred unrestricted "First Amendment Rights from [L]iving beings "We The People" to "legal persons" designated as newspaper and broadcast businesses. This fact was been made clear by the court order which required the F.E.C. to write regulations that would bring the web into compliance with BCRA. You want proof:  Why was F.E.C. required to decide if my website operated at my expense solely by me a......[L]iving being should enjoy the same press exemption as the New York Times newspaper corporation?
 
Dan Rather in his function as news anchor was not required to register with the Federal Election Commission. Dan Rather was not required to report his political activities at CBS to the Federal Election Commission. Ask yourself a question. Why did Dan Rather enjoy more freedom to speak?  Did Dan Rather hold a title of nobility.....or is it actually a "corporation" CBS that owns an unrestricted "FREE SPEECH FRANCHISE" which extended to its employee Dan Rather?  

      The "Press Exemption" is a poor effort to disguise the creation of superior and inferior "RIGHTS" to influence our political process. Contrary to all the hype, election laws are not designed to create a level playing field or to protect the public from the corrupting influence of too much money in our political process. Modern election laws are designed to protect incumbents from challengers with a 95% to 98% reelection rate! [3] [4] [5]

2 USC 431 (9) (B) The term "expenditure" does not include -

(i) any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed

through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper,

magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities

are owned or controlled by any political party, political

committee, or candidate;

2 U.S.C. 431 (9) (B) (i) divides use of the printing press a "free press" into two categories:

The regulated majority...... every living U.S. Citizen, political party and political organization

and the unregulated commercial media.

In the Matter of The Coalition National Republican Congressional Committee, et al.

MUR 4624

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD COMMISSIONER BRADLEY A. SMITH

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.

Does anyone doubt that our United States Constitution and its "Bill 0f Rights" was written by "living beings" for the "primary purpose" of guaranteeing the Rights of "Living Beings"?

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