By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (bannerofliberty.com)
March 20, 2000
A provision in Sen. McCain's new version of his "Campaign Finance" Bill appears to be a frontal attack on the burgeoning Internet communication during Federal elections. The new bill is worse than the bill last year. Even the Washington Post, known for always supporting the Democrats side of issues, reported that seems to have reservations:
"The most vulnerable provision in the McCain-Feingold legislation is a section that bars unions and corporations from buying "issue advertising" on television and radio that mentions federal candidates during a specified period before elections. The same section also would subject other interest groups that buy ads to new funding disclosure rules.".
In 1976, in Buckley v Valeo, 424 US.1, the US Supreme Court held:
The First Amendment requires the invalidation of the Act's independent expenditure ceiling, its limitation on a candidate's expenditures from his own personal funds, and its ceilings on over-all campaign expenditures, since those provisions place substantial and direct restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens, and associations to engage in protected political expression, restrictions that the First Amendment cannot tolerate.
Yet, somehow McCain, Feingold, Olympia Snowe and a majority of Democrats seem to think that THIS time the Supreme Court will approve a sweeping limitation on the public's right to communicate during the last 90 days of federal elections.
Basically McCain-Feingold's bill, S27, amends Section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 by criminalizing what it calls "electioneering communications." It then defines "electioneering communications" as meaning:
"any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which-'(i) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office;
`(ii) is made within--
`(I) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for such Federal office; or
`(II) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for such Federal office; and
`(iii) is made to an audience that includes members of the electorate for such election, convention, or caucus."
While the Washington Post tells its readers that the bill refers to ""issue advertising" on television and radio" that's not what the bill says. What it says could obviously be interpreted to mean sending e-mails or posting information on Internet websites since both are certainly "satellite communication." The bill goes on to "except" under the term "electioneering communication":
`(i) a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate; or
`(ii) a communication which constitutes an expenditure or an independent expenditure under this Act.
McCain and Feingold and their staffs must have spent a lot of time figuring out that wording. That neatly excludes any of the major broadcast conglomerate, i.e. Time-Warner, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox News, etc., but seems to include anyone or any organization with a website that comments on campaign issues who spends more than $833 per month on a website advertising its existence. . In fact, it appears to do exactly what Senator Pete Dominici said it would do - give the major, liberal broadcast media total control over America's political process.
The bill states that:
"Every person who makes a disbursement for electioneering communications in an aggregate amount in excess of $10,000 during any calendar year shall, within 24 hours of each disclosure date, file with the Commission a statement containing the information described in paragraph (2).`(2) CONTENTS OF STATEMENT- Each statement required to be filed under this subsection shall be made under penalty of perjury and shall contain the following information:
`(A) The identification of the person making the disbursement, of any entity sharing or exercising direction or control over the activities of such person, and of the custodian of the books and accounts of the person making the disbursement.
`(B) The principal place of business of the person making the disbursement, if not an individual.
`(C) The amount of each disbursement of more than $200 during the period covered by the statement and the identification of the person to whom the disbursement was made.
`(D) The elections to which the electioneering communications pertain and the names (if known) of the candidates identified or to be identified.
`(E) If the disbursements were paid out of a segregated bank account which consists of funds contributed soley (sic) by individuals directly to this account for electioneering communications, the names and addresses of all contributors who contributed an aggregate amount of $1,000 or more to that account during the period beginning on the first day of the preceding calendar year and ending on the disclosure date. Nothing in this section is to be construed as a prohibition on the use of funds in such a segregated account for a purpose other than electioneering communications.
My first reaction to reading the McCain-Feingold Act last year was to conclude that, while it was in my opinion clearly and unconstitutional limitation on speech, that it would not affect internet campaigning or websites such as this. It did not mention " This current bill changes wording in the 1999 bill which defined "electioneering communication" as "any broadcast from a television or radio broadcast station, " to "any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication."
As I read that, and as it can be clearly interpreted to mean, any website that picked up my October 27, 1999 analysis entitled "Al Gore Says as President He Would Stop Boy Scouts From 'Discriminating' Against Homosexuals" would have been in violation of McCain-Feingold. Save Our Scouts, (www.saveourscouts.com), other websites and talk show hosts picked up that analysis, discussed it on the air and published it on other websites. Had McCain-Feingold been in place, Al Gore's army of lawyers undoubtedly would have been knocking on my door with lawsuit in hand.
I created my website for the purpose of making the "original sources," i.e. the actual words, of candidates available to the public. During 1998 and 2000 I published the links to candidate websites so the public could compare what candidates were saying. It appears to me that, under McCain-Feingold's current wording, that could certainly be illegal, leaving the liberal media once again in total control of what you hear about candidates, which is the point that both Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Sen. Pete Dominici, (R-NM) tried to say in the debate, before the Dominici Amendment was shot down in a 51-48 vote.
To comment: mmostert@bannerofliberty.com
To Subscribe to the Reagan Monitor, the newsletter that gives you news FACTS you can USE to make your life, and the world, better go to:
Start Your Subscription
