Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (148792)	5/25/2001 11:40:18 AM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Do you support the NRA's right to lobby Congress? ~SB~

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (148792)	5/25/2001 2:16:43 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Pat, from my NRA magazine, so you can see how nutty they are. The penalty section of S.27 delegates broad powers to the US Sentencing Comm. to create new "guidelines" to provide sentencing enhancements and to stress the "serious nature of such violations and the need for aggressive and appropriate law enforcement action to prevent such violations." Note that it doesn't say "punish violations", it says "prevent violations." Except for criminal penalties, the McCain Feingold stricture on expenditure of funds that affect political speech is identical in concept and intent to federal campaign laws that the USSC declared unconstitutional in 1976. That case--Buckley v. Valeo (424 U.S. at 1) --has been cited in at least 20 lower court decisions upholding the principle of free political speech is essential to free speech itself. Buckley declared that laws regulating money spent for "issue advocacy" served to "prohibit all individuals who are neither candidates nor owners of institutional press facilities, from voicing their views." The language struck down by Buckley was virtually identical to McCain-Feingold. The irony of ironies in the mess that McCain has dumped on the American people is that he admits what he wants to fix may not even be broken, referring to what he calls "the abundant evidence of at least the appearance of corruption". In his opening statement for the long floor debate, McCain said, "Do I believe that any law will prove effective over time?" "No, I do not." The McCain-Feingold Bill: Putting a Muzzle on the First Amendment by James O.E. Norell "America's First Freedom" June, 2001

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (148792)	5/25/2001 2:28:17 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Respond to of 769670

What was ruled unprotected free speech were anonymous fliers, at least by the CA SC. The FPPC had fined a Santa Ana City Council candidate in 1988 because he didn't identify his committee on fliers. May 25, 2001 By COURTNEY PERKES The Orange County Register The California Supreme Court on Thursday upheld its earlier decision that anonymous campaign literature sent by a former Santa Ana councilman is not protected as free speech. The outcome of the case of Daniel Griset, who was fined by the Fair Political Practices Commission for sending out campaign mailers without identifying himself, sends a strong message to candidates, said Karen Getman, FPPC chairman. "The primary significance is there's been some cloud of doubt about whether it was constitutional to require candidates to identify themselves on their campaign literature," Getman said. "With this decision, there's no doubt." In 1988, Griset, a candidate for re-election to the City Council, sent out mailings to voters without identifying his committee as the source. The FPPC fined Griset $10,000, and he sued over the law requiring political candidates to put his name and address on mailings paid for by his campaign. The case first went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1994, and the court ruled against Griset. But in 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a similar Ohio law, and Griset was allowed to revive his case. In 1999, the 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana ruled that a ban on anonymous campaign literature violated the First Amendment. On Thursday, the state Supreme Court said the case never should have been reopened, and its original decision stood. Griset was out of the country and could not be reached for comment. Brad Hertz, Griset's attorney, said he was disappointed and would consider asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rehear the case. "We've said all along for 11 years now that part of the First Amendment and state constitution right to free speech includes a right to anonymity," Hertz said. "While there may be some adverse impacts from that, that's part of the price we pay for First Amendment."