Control freaks
What good are your rights if the constitution is a, “living document,” changeable on a whim?
Free speech? Roadkill under the tires of Campaign Finance Reformers, bureaucrats, control freaks, Fairness Doctrine Supporters, and do-gooder regulators of every amateur and governmental stripe and classification.
Campaign Finance Reform is a great example of the kind of monumental stupidity and meddling I’m talking about. Besides being contra-constitutional and anti-freedom, campaign finance laws are the favored method of controlling elections with those who want to expand the scope and reach of arbitrary government control.
Stephen Colbert’s foray into faux electioneering exposes one aspect of the absurdity of having the government police free speech and political activity.
No Joke: Colbert’s Campaign May Run Afoul of Law
Campaign Finance Law May Spoil Comedian’s FunWith its snack-food sponsorship, Democratic and Republican affiliations, and Sen. Larry Craig as a possible running mate, Stephen Colbert’s run for the presidency is hardly serious business.
But the joke could be on Colbert if federal election officials decide his candidacy is for real.
…After being alerted to a possible election law violation, he and the network dropped plans to post signature forms on Comedy Central’s Web site, and instead created a bare-bones Web site for official campaign activity
~abc.com
Who said this was a joke? Colbert is polling quite well:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that Colbert is preferred by 13% of voters as an independent candidate challenging Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani. The survey was conducted shortly after Colbert’s surprise announcement that he is lusting for the Oval Office. ~rasmussenreports.com
These kinds of Election laws and the whole Campaign Finance Reform movement itself is all about controlling political activity and free speech. The most ardent advocates are those who most ardently want to control free speech and political activity. Undue influence of wealthy special interest in elections?! Sounds like an example of a solution in search of a problem.
The urge to control the thoughts and speech of others is not new and is not likely to go away any time soon no matter how many amendments or laws exist. Which is why we should be able to see potential infringements when they are attempting to gain a stranglehold on the entire marketplace of political activity.
Under the aegis of protecting the defenseless and poor from the undue influence of fabled, “moneyed-interests,” campaign finance reformers propose giving the government virtually unlimited and arbitrary power over the political activities of every American.
Never happen, you say? Not in this modern age. No sane politician would ever propose to limit the free speech of average voters/citizens?
There is this proposed Italian law which carries the spirit of ensuring responsible speech in every publishing arena.
The Levi-Prodi law lays out that anyone with a blog or a website has to register it with the ROC, a register of the Communications Authority, produce certificates, pay a tax, even if they provide information without any intention to make money.
…the Levi-Prodi law obliges anyone who has a website or a blog to get a publishing company and to have a journalist who is on the register of professionals as the responsible director. ~beppegrillo.it
McCain-Feingold
The University of Pennsylvania’s Annenburg Public Policy Center and the University of Wisconsin-Madison have documented the dramatic rise in issue advocacy. In response to these concerns, the McCain-Feingold bill banned ads within 60 days of a general election that are paid for by outside groups and identify a particular candidate.
This is reminiscent of the Fairness Doctrine that Democrats and leftists are so determined to use to muzzle their political opponents.
(sigh) The Constitution is a living document because of the Supreme Court. Were it set in stone, there would be 1) no judicial review, 2) no real need for the supreme court, and 3) no real Rule of Law. This would be bad. Judicial Review is one of the founding principles of our government, which allows our Constitution to fit the changes of the times. Like, you know, woman suffrage and equal rights, incorporation and a fix to our elections.
Speaking of elections, campaign finance bills have been proven constitutional by the Supreme Court, so long as they do not set an extremely low maximum on spending or that they set a cap on how much total money a candidate receives. The Supreme Court, of course, is infinitely more capable of interpreting and applying the constitution than you are, and they are given a mandate by that same Constitution you claim you espouse.