McCain, Coleman and other Polticians Want to Squash Our 1st Amendment Rights!!!

[BigRobT]

I discovered this on another board here in my state. Norm Coleman is one of our "illustrious" Senators. After reading what is being said, I find it apalling and an outright assault on our First Amendment rights. What's McCain trying to hide?? WHY are other Senators willing to go along with him?? This is just unreal!!

Please contact Sen. Norm Coleman and tell him you oppose S. 2128.
Washington: 202-224-5641
St. Paul: 651-645-0323
Mankato: 507-625-6800

He needs to hear especially from Republicans (like me) who supported him in the past.

This lame attempt to gag honest gun owners does NOT merit his support.
See below for a sample text. For an easy way to contact him and other
MN legislators go to http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm.

McCain Still Trying To Gag Gun Owners From Criticizing
His Anti-gun Record

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

A few weeks ago, we alerted you to legislation -- introduced by
anti-gun Senator John McCain (R-AZ) -- which is aimed at squelching
the First Amendment rights of grassroots groups like Gun Owners of
America.

That bill, S. 2128, is ostensibly aimed at dealing with some of the
congressional controversies that have hit the media in recent weeks.
A true reform bill would focus the spotlight on members like John
McCain, who was one of the original Keating Five senators who were
deeply implicated in the savings and loan scandal.

Instead, McCain began his war on real transparency in 2002 when he
teamed up with anti-gun Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) to push the
Incumbent Protection Act into law -- an act that stifles the ability
of organizations like GOA to criticize elected officials before an
election.

Now with the Gag Act (S. 2128), McCain wants to target his wrath on
groups like GOA -- requiring them to register their "grassroots"
communications and to file twice as many frivolous reports.

If McCain succeeds in pushing an expansive interpretation of his bill
(as he did when he convinced the courts to regulate the Internet
under McCain-Feingold), then we could see a host of draconian
restrictions affecting both GOA and you.

For example, if we wanted to alert you to gun ban that is moving in
our nation's capital, we could first have to tell McCain (and all his
other buddies in Congress) about what we're planning to do, who we're
planning to alert (that is, grassroots folks like yourself), how much
money we plan to spend, etc.

Because of Section 105 in this bill, everyone with whom GOA contracts
to get the word out (advertisers, printers, etc.) could be required
to tell Congress twenty days in advance about GOA's public
information campaign.

In effect, we would end up alerting Sarah Brady every time we plan to
wage a grassroots campaign in opposition to gun control.

This is ridiculous!

No doubt, the Gag Act is further proof that grassroots lobbying
works. It works so well, that John McCain wants to muzzle it.

S. 2128 -- or a bill that is similar to it -- is now likely to come
to the floor of the Senate in early March, according to Majority
Leader Bill Frist. It is imperative that we contact our Senators
today.

ACTION:

1. Please urge your Senators to oppose the Gag Act (S. 2128). And,
if your Senator has cosponsored the bill, then he or she especially
needs to hear from you. Senators who have cosponsored this bill are:

Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Joseph Lieberman (D-CT)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators a
pre-written e-mail message such as the one below.

2. Take action and then please forward this alert to your pro-gun
friends and family!

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

Now that the Senate is looking to pass so-called lobbying reform
legislation, I hope you will NOT support any bill that would gag
grassroots lobbying organizations.

To be sure, John McCain's bill (S. 2128) would do just that!

In 2002, Senators McCain and Feingold teamed up to pass the Incumbent
Protection Act, a bill that infringes upon the First Amendment rights
of gun owners and other Americans by squelching their ability to
criticize elected officials before an election.

Now, Senator McCain wants to pass the Gag Act (S. 2128). In this
latest version, McCain targets his wrath on grassroots organizations
-- requiring them to register their "grassroots" communications with
their members and to file twice as many frivolous reports.

Please oppose S. 2128 or any other "reform" bill that would scapegoat
outside groups, through which American citizens are better able to
petition their government and which serve as government watchdogs.

Sincerely,

 

[carlrodd]

just emailed ol' Biden. thanks for the link.

 

[another okie]

In your post you ask why McCain and others would support such a bill. The answer has two parts.

First, they believe that once elected they are a sort of patrician-nobleman class that should never be criticized or have to face opposition at the polls.

Second, they believe the current system makes them spend too much time raising funds and making too many promises to big donors. They have a point, but sometimes freedom has a price, and their point is not grounds for doing away with the core purpose of the first amendment.

 

['Card]

This is a load of crap.

*sorry*

In my humble opinion, this is a bit overblown.

McCain is trying to reduce the direct influence that special interest groups have on elections. This is a good thing. Yes, it may keep pro-gun groups that we all like from bashing some liberal a few days before the election, but it would also keep the opposing liberal group from bashing a pro-gun candidate right before an election.

As far as "registering their grassroots" efforts, what that means is that McCain is trying to get special interests to be more transparent about where the money comes from - and that's also a very good thing. Those who donate to liberal and anti-gun special interest groups shouldn't be allowed to hide behind anonymous donations.


Just for future reference, any press release that mentions McCain's connection to the 'Keating 5' scandals, and doesn't mention the fact that he's a war hero should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[longeyes]

McCain is trying to reduce the direct influence that special interest groups have on elections. This is a good thing. Yes, it may keep pro-gun groups that we all like from bashing some liberal a few days before the election, but it would also keep the opposing liberal group from bashing a pro-gun candidate right before an election.

Special interest groups? You mean collections of citizens who feel passionately about some issue?

Since when is it a good thing to silence ANYONE?

 

[Beren]

For example, if we wanted to alert you to gun ban that is moving in
our nation's capital, we could first have to tell McCain (and all his
other buddies in Congress) about what we're planning to do, who we're
planning to alert (that is, grassroots folks like yourself), how much
money we plan to spend, etc.

IF this is a valid characterization, it bothers me greatly. What a group is PLANNING to say is none of the government's business. They can find out in the press release like everyone else.

 

['Card]

No one should be silenced, but your right to free speech doesn't mean you get to say anything about anybody anonymously. In our country, at least in theory, people should take responsibility for their actions.

The current system of special interests allows fruitcakes like PETA, MoveOn.org and others to set up some kind of straw organization, call it whatever they want (Citizens for Protecting the Constitution or something wholesome and innocent sounding like that) and begin blasting good conservative candidates and spreading outright lies about them two days before an election. If that's what PETA and MoveOn.org want to do and what they want to say then that's fine, but they shouldn't be allowed to hide behind some kind of fictional 'grassroots' group that they just made up out of thin air.

All this bill is shooting for is transparency. Allowing the public to see who's footing the bill is not an infringement of free speech.

In fact, I'd be pretty damned suspicious of any group that was against it.

 

[BigRobT]

I don't agree with "straw organizations", as you define them. I saw far too much of it during the past election. I think the McCain/Feingold act covered most of that. Now, from what I gather, he wants to silence HIS potential opposition due to his stance on gun control. He is NOT pro-2nd!! His attitudes towards gun ownership is well documented. No, I do NOT like this at all. We are continually being made to give up freedoms. To what end?? So that we become "subjects" and not "citizens" ?? I'm all for transparency, but to "ask permission" to criticize a candidate?? Sorry, nope, ain't gonna happen

 

['Card]

I understand. Pretty much any time any organization with 'gun owner' in the name of the group proclaims anything, a lot of people think it would be anti-gun to disagree with them. I don't buy that. I don't need this group to do my thinking for me. I'm a grown man and I can think for myself.

I've been an NRA member for over a decade, I'm a military veteran, and I'm the owner of a large collection of firearms. From what I see, this bill makes it harder for both sides of the political spectrum to use cheap, dirty, cowardly and deceitful tactics. I don't think my side (which is also your side, by the way) needs to use cheap, dirty, cowardly and deceitful tactics, because I think we're in the right - so I'm all for it.

Whether a person is liberal or conservative, pro-gun or anti-gun, if they have something to say they should be willing to say it out loud, not hiding behind fake names and fake organizations. If they aren't willing to own up to their own words, then they should sit down and shut up - and that goes for PETA and these so-called "Gun Owners of America".

 

[Beren]

If they aren't willing to own up to their own words, then they should sit down and shut up.

Should they have to ask permission prior to speaking their own words, or "register" before they are allowed to speak? Some of our most beneficial political discourse has been done anonymously.

 

[roo_ster]

'Card argues for the continental european version of free speech.

No thanks, I'll take my 1st Amendment straight up, no chaser.

 

[carlrodd]

"I cannot help thinking, that the reader must have observed in Philanthrop's last performance, that a foundation is there laid for a dangerous superstructure: and that from his principles, might easily be delineated a plan of despotism, which however uncommon it may be, for the laws and constitution of the state to be openly and boldly oppos'd, our enemies have long threatened to establish by violence. If Philanthrop upon retrospection shall think so, he will, like a prudent physician, administer an antidote for the poison: If not, I hope the attention of others will be awakened to that excellent maxim, "no less essential in politicks than in morals", principiis obsta. It is impolitick to make the first attempt to enslave mankind by force: This strikes the imagination, and is alarming: "Important changes insensibly happen: It is against silent & slow attacks that a nation ought to be particularly on its guard.""

VINDEX. Jan. 15th, 1771


Vindex...aka Samuel Adams. Should he have had to announce who he was? The noose is tightening.

 

['Card]

Since when did standing up for what you believe in become 'continental european'?

Maybe it's just me, but I like the fact that slimy politicians have to say "My name is Congressman Scumbag, and I approved this message"- after their 30-second mudslinging spots are over. If they aren't willing to sling mud openly, then they shouldn't be doing it at all, right? Is talking about people behind their back OK, or would you prefer people say it to your face? It's all the same principle to me.

Beren makes a good point about anonymous political discourse, and I think it's a valid option when the person who was making a statement feels threatened. There's no threat in any of this. This isn't really even about being anonymous. This is about PETA being able to go on TV claiming to be some Christian Family group and spouting whatever lies they want.

I'm all for Free Speech, and all for anyone being able to say and claim anything they want - but being able to pretend you're someone else in the process is wrong, no matter what kind of flag you try to cloak it in.

 

[boofus]

Yes, it may keep pro-gun groups that we all like from bashing some liberal a few days before the election

So your version of the 1st Amendment reads like this? "Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech or the press, except a few days before an election. Then congress can pass any law abridging anything they want."

If Jesus comes flying out of heaven on a flaming chariot with pink winged monkeys flying out of his butt and says "No free speech before an election!" it still isn't a good enough reason.

The right to call Bush/Kerry/Gore/Cheney a monkeyfaced, incompetent doofus 72 hours before the election is a natural right of every human being and what the 1st amendment is all about.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

Show me the part of the 1st Amendment that says it is OK for congress to pass a law abridging the freedom of speech or the press for a few days before an election? You won't find it because the framers of the constitution made it clear NO circumstances were good enough for congress to pass such a law.

The right to call Bush/Kerry/Gore/Cheney a monkeyfaced doofus 72 hours before the election is a natural right and what the 1st amendment is all about.

+1

 

[gc70]

I didn't see all of the stuff that GOA was raising an alarm about, but read S. 2128 for yourself, particularly Section 105.

If fact, I'm dropping the BS flag on GOA on this. The junk in the GOA release about giving advance notice to Congress is simply not in the proposed bill.

Instead of reacting to GOA's EOTWAWKI press release, read S. 2128.

 

[CAnnoneer]

+1 longeyes

Wow, I expected McKodos to maintain the pretences at least until Nov 2008...

 

[roo_ster]

[quote='Card]Since when did standing up for what you believe in become 'continental european'? [/quote]
Cute, but irrelevant.

Your attitude mirrors that of the continental european nations.

Unlike Great Britain and the USA, their concept of rights is more along the lines of, "Rights are what gov't grants to its subjects," whereas the Brit & American tradition is more, "Rights are granted by God, who is greater than gov't."

-------------------------

Political speech is the most important form there is. Folks focus on inanities and go to the mat for some art-school loser who dunks a crucifix in a beaker of urine, but bray "campaign finance reform" in an effort to gut the First Amendment of its meaning and teeth.

-------------------------

Understand that such restrictive legislation barring anonymous speech is not meant to help you, the data consumer, but to intimidate & keep track of the speaker(s).

Think that's far-fetched? Well, who would have thought RICO would have been used against political advocacy groups like Operation Rescue? "You're and other THR members conspiring with others to deny them their freedom from gun violence...especially those who donated to get THR on to a bigger server. Oleg Volk is running a Racketeer Influenced Criminal Organization and will be charged as the criminal he is."