Free Speech versus Campaign Finance Reform your thoughts please

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Shays-Meehan would more aptly be called the "gag your constituents" bill, or the "incumbent-protection act." Here's what it would do:


1. Make it more difficult for third parties to get their message out. The bill would ban parties such as the Libertarian Party from accepting the "soft money" contributions (money used for issue ads as opposed to ads that mention a specific candidate) that enables us to advertise and support challengers. Meanwhile, since most contributions from political action committees go to incumbents, the bill leaves PAC money untouched.

2. It turns incumbents into "untouchables." Shays-Meehan makes it a crime to mention the name of a federal candidate in any radio or television ad run by a corporation or labor union within 60 days of an election. This gag-the opposition strategy is plainly unconstitutional, as several federal courts have already ruled.

3. It turns citizens involved in the democratic process into criminal collaborators. For example, an advocacy group and a member of congress could be deemed to have engaged in illegal "coordinated" activity if the group distributed literature publicizing the results of a candidate questionnaire on the issues. If Shays-Meehan passes, this very action item, where we ask you as a voter to write to an incumbent asking them to change their position on an issue, would likely be deemed a crime.

 

[Unclebill]

The only meaningful campaign reform [NOTE: I did NOT say campaign finance reform] needed will never be achieved simply because the people in office can't afford to have it pass, particularly the Democrats because they rely on fraud far more to gain election/reelection.

That reform would be to make political ads subject to the same truth in advertising laws as any business concern.