McCain-Feingold Still a Threat

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Mon, 23 May 2005 12:00:00 GMT
# GeekWithA.45 - FEC Public Comments Deadline: June 3rd, 2005 - The McCain-Feingold Insurrection hasn't been in the news for a while. Well, the f.e.c. hasn't forgotten about their proposed rulemaking that started it. The deadline for public comments is a week from Friday. Redstate.org has details and links. The f.e.c.'s proposed regulations concerning to the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform (BCRA) are here. The one concerning the internet is here (PDF). Comments may be sent to internet@fec.gov, and must include your "full name and postal address". Attachments, if any, "must be in the Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) or Microsoft Word (.doc) format." I sent the following:
Message-ID: <8fbe874a0505222009227ea1b3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 23:09:38 -0400
From: "Bill St. Clair" <billstclair@gmail.com>
Reply-To: bill@billstclair.com
To: internet@fec.gov
Subject: Comment on proposed rulemaking

Re: 11 CFR Parts 100, 110 and 114, [Notice 2005-10], Internet Communications

This comment concerns the FEC's threat to extend the provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA) to the internet. I have a big problem with this proposal, a problem I share with many other small internet publishers, the "blogging" community.

My problem is the obvious constitutional one. Where in the U.S. Constitution is Congress authorized to make laws concerning campaign finances? Nowhere that I can find. Moreover, Congress is expressly forbidden, by the First Amendment, to regulate advertisements or any other speech in any medium: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Only a lawyer could mistake the obvious meaning of these words, or decide that there is some difference between "commercial" and "private" speech. It says "speech". Period. Whether that speech is carried through the air, on the printed page, via radio or television transmissions, by talking drum, or via the internet, Congress is forbidden to make any law abridging the freedom of speech.

I do not recognize the authority of Congress to create a "law" such as the BCRA, hence, no matter which rules you make about it, I, and many other internet publishers, will ignore them. The "law" they are based on is null and void. It does not exist.

Bill St. Clair
[address ellided]

# Rich English at Modern Drunkard Magazine - Jack Daniel's Old No. 7 is no longer with us - Brown-Forman, the company that bought Jack Daniels Distillery in 1956, has watered it down from its original 90 proof to 80 proof. Mr. English gives a history of their sour mash bourbon and calls for a boycott. I used to enjoy a bit of Jack Daniels now and then, but I've been on the wagon for over 20 years. [root]

# At the request of its author, I have deleted the contents of this page. Of course, I also removed the link to that page from the story index.

Add comment Edit post Add post