Soon, the libertarian party and others will have their day in court to protest the unconstitutional bipartisan campaign finance reform act, an unconstitutional law in a further campaign by the two parties to cement their own power into political life. http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0301/bcra.html


The lawsuit against the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) -- which features the Libertarian Party as a co-plaintiff -- will get its first hearing in court on Wednesday, December 4.

The case will be argued before a special panel of three federal judges in Washington, DC.

The lawsuit, McConnell v. FEC, is spearheaded by U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Along with the Libertarian Party, there are about two dozen co-plaintiffs in the case, including the NRA, the ACLU, the Republican National Committee, RealCampaignReform.org, and the AFL-CIO.

The judges could hand down a summary judgment as soon as December 4.

At stake in the hearing: "The future shape of the American political system," according to the Washington Post.

"Defenders and critics of the new law [will make] their case for and against the most far-reaching changes in the campaign finance system since the post-Watergate overhaul of the 1970s," the newspaper reported.

The case is the first major legal test of the BCRA, which was passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush in 2001. It took effect on November 6, 2002.

The law bans "soft money" contributions to national political parties, prohibits soft-money financed "issues ads" before elections, and prohibits people under 18 from making political contributions.

Although described by supporters as an attempt to take the "corrupting" influence of money out of campaigns, the law could have a debilitating effect on smaller political parties like the Libertarian Party, said former LP Executive Director Steve Dasbach.

"It's a flat-out horrible law," he said. "In addition to eliminating some sources of revenue, it greatly increases the administrative and regulatory burden on the party at all levels."

For example, the BCRA will force many LP state organizations to register with the FEC in order to transfer funds to the national LP or participate in any "federal election activity," said Dasbach.

The Libertarian Party signed on as a co-plaintiff in McConnell v. FEC in March 2002.

Another plaintiff in the case is 2002 Massachusetts LP U.S. Senate candidate Michael Cloud, who said he joined the lawsuit because "I want to be able to exercise my First Amendment freedoms of speech, association, and press."

"The real purpose and effect of the campaign finance laws are to concentrate power in the hands of the media and incumbents, and to hold challengers and new ideas at bay," he said. "Our legal challenge, if successful, would put these laws out of commission."

At the hearing on Wednesday, lawyers will argue that the ban on issues ads violates the First Amendment's protection of free speech, and that the ban on soft-money donations "cripples the ability of political parties to play their traditional role in campaigns," according to the Washington Post.

Bill Hall, an attorney for the national LP, said he anticipated a mixed verdict from the court.

"I expect certain of the electioneering portions of the law to be declared unconstitutional," he said. "In addition, the LP has made a compelling case for overturning the provisions that prohibit soft money contributions and contributions by minors. However, I'm not optimistic that the Supreme Court will overturn this wretched law entirely."

No matter what the outcome, the loser will likely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, said Hall. The high court could hear the case before it adjourns in June 2003.

There must be more parties in power besides the two jackass republican and democratic parties.

VOTE LP!!!!!1

Homer

It is a blatant violation of free speech and the only reason Bush signed it into law was to appease the Democrats to stop their obstructionism. It is fairly obvious that the Supreme Court will kill it as it is obviously unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional? So it's constitutional that only the wealthy and powerful have any chance of getting elected?

Without campaign finance reform, only candidates with corperate support get mass publicity. That means in order to get elected, you need to support corperations and act in their favor in order to get their money. This is somewhere along the lines of a dictatorship, and it really fucks up American workers. It's unconstitutional to deny someone a right to get through to the people if they don't support multi national corperations.

Its unconsitutional to limit the free speech of individuals. Violation of first ammendment rights. Wealth has nothing to do with it.

How in the holy hell could you possibly support campaign finance "reform?" I thought the words "Congress shall make NO LAW..." in the First Amendment were pretty clear.

Corporations can give all the money they like; the voters are still the ones who choose the next leader.

It has nothing to do with free speech. Claiming it does is a cheap copout. It's how money is spent, not how opinions are voiced.

A&A, you actually believe voters have legitimate say in who their leader is? That's naive. The more money a campaign has, the more control they have over the media, and the more the public hears from them. Also, wealth makes it much easier to cover up lies and corruption. Voters are only manipulated by the press and each political party's corperate sponsors. You serioulsy think it's fair that two parties have complete control over the mass media?

[This message has been edited by UnclNastyFingerz (edited 12-04-2002).]

It is not a cop out. The bill restricts commercials that may be played before an election. This is an obvious infringement of free speech. If anyone wants to purchase a commercial, then they should be able to. This is a direct violation of political free speech and should get you as pissed as the censoring of political cartoons or the claim that one is a traitor for criticizing the president in a time of war. The bottom line is that television, radio, and bill-boards are a medium of expression and therefore to limit the political content that is displayed on them is a direct infringement on the first ammendment.

If a candidate honestly funds a commercial without using corrupt methods to earn the money, the bill doesn't restrict the commercial. The bill actually promotes freedom of speech by giving third parties a better opportunity to advertise themselves.

Finance reform doesn't limit content at all, it simply limits the funding of content.

[This message has been edited by UnclNastyFingerz (edited 12-04-2002).]

The bill restricts all comercials, even if I decided to pay for one myself. It is not just a restriction of the candidates spending, it restricts the spending of any group that wants to promote a certain candidate.

It doesn't effect content, unless you count silencing me entirley as content in which case it is the greatest content change of all.


[This message has been edited by NukeChild (edited 12-04-2002).]

OF COURSE voters have a legitimate say in the workings of this country. It's just that they've been "saying" some dumbass stuff, and have totally discarded the principals this nation was founded on.

Yes, it sucks that the neocons and "liberals" run the media and cut everybody else out of the action. But it's still the responsibility of the American people to see that for what it is - propaganda. Even as our fragile freedoms are seized, the vote remains sacred. If the people would just pull their heads out of their asses, we could turn this country around in no time. The electorate has nobody to blame for its oppression, save itself.

How can you expect the American people to see through propoghanda if they don't have access to third parties or independent political movements? Where are they gonna here anything new from? Newsweek and Time magazines are conservative, National Public Radio is liberal. Where are people decipher the bullshit and get past the grip the powerful have on the media? You can't get publicity without corperate support.

Campaign finance reform should include free air-time and print coverage. That doesn't restrict free speech.

You forgot to limit campaigns to two weeks. Kerry (D) Mass. has already filed to begin a run in 04 ... Lord have mercy.

Nox

Free air time for any legitimate political party.

When you say free, I am assuming that you mean that the government pays for the airtime right? I ask this because the T.V. and radio corporations are privately owned and it is extremely anal to expect them to provide the service for free, even if they were compensated by a tax credit.

Taxpayers should pay the money.

LOL.

I am going to tax you Mr. Preacher to pay for the campaign comercial of the Sodomites for President Party. Yeah, real fair. People should contribute to the campaigns they want, not be forced to support losers whose politics are contrary to either their beliefs or wants. Let the Candidates raise the money themselves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
T.V. and radio corporations are privately owned and it is extremely anal to expect them to provide the service for free...

---

The citizens own the airways, and they in turn license their use by the corporations. If they want to renew, then they give up some airtime.

No one should ever have to pay for political campaigns through taxes. We already pay a substantial ammount to the 2 political parties every year to fund their campaigns. We unwittingly subsidise our own slavery to these tyrants. The idea that because they wish to rule over us, we should pay them is ridiculous. These two giants raise millions of dollars in funds without the government, and so I think they should use that to fund their entire campaign.
Many other countries have a multi-party system, and therin lies their strength. The abilitiy to pull more than one lever makes everyone those levers represent more apt to listen to what their constituants want, not what would make them the most money.
However, the average voter is way too stupid to realize any of this. They are told that they have two choices, but they have much, much more. One day, the united states public will stop laughing at third parties and listen to what they have to say. Until then, those of us who know better than to trust the two must stand up and be counted.
Next election, DO NOT vote democrat, DO NOT vote republican, pick one of the other parties (lp is the best) and vote for them.

Homer

Taxpayer money would be distrivuted evenly to any party, major party or third party.

How isn't this fair? They represent us, why should corrupt corperations control their campaigns?

Obviously the parties don't represent us. That is the core of your argument. There are also huge differences between the third parties and obviously not all of them would represent my interests. The point therefore is that I am being taxed to support the campaigns of individuals who do not represent my needs or opinions. That is why it is not fair.

You are also entirely forgeting PACs, political action committes. The purpose of the PACs is to lobby in Washington and donate money to individuals that further the cause of the group the PAC represents. Some PACs represent your "corrupt corporations" but others are consumer advocacy or enviromental protection groups. The NRA has a PAC, and so does the NAACP, ACLU, AARP, and many others. The point being that when like minded individuals band together and pool their financial resources, then they are given a voice and become effective champions of "the little guy."

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
How can you expect the American people to see through propoghanda if they don't have access to third parties or independent political movements? Where are they gonna here anything new from? Newsweek and Time magazines are conservative, National Public Radio is liberal. Where are people decipher the bullshit and get past the grip the powerful have on the media? You can't get publicity without corperate support.

---

Here's a question - are you one of the "American People?" I imagine you are. I know I am. Why is it that you think people such as ourselves can see the corruption of the American government, but the majority of Americans can't? Are you really that much smarter than the average American? I'm not; I just want my damn constitution back.

The American People - every single one of them - has the ability to see what their government has come to, and to turn it around. They have chosen not to. Saying the American people vote for bad candidates because of political propaganda is like saying a child killed another child because he played violent video games. Even in the face of such propaganda, the choice lies with the individual.

[This message has been edited by Armed&Angry (edited 12-06-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
Here's a question - are you one of the "American People?" I imagine you are.

---

No he's not. He's French (by his own admission).

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
I am being taxed to support the campaigns of individuals who do not represent my needs or opinions.

---

Don't listen to Uncl, he's out to rob your money (among other things.)

The politicians get their time for free. All we have to do is, muster the balls to pre-empt Survivor.

quote:

---

You are also entirely forgeting PACs

---

PAC's would not be allowed to make donations. Donations wouldn't be needed, because campaigns would become platform-oriented again.

The problem with being platform oriented, is how do I, the common man, influence the platform? PAC's are a conduit between the government and the people and lobbying is a way to let the government know what you want.

As an individual, you have little chance at changing a party platform. However, by getting involved at the local political level, you personally may be able to progress to a state and eventually national platform committee. It is there that you have an opportunity to change things.

Nox

I didn't say do away with PAC's. I said they couldn't donate, and pointed out that donations wouldn't be required to get elected anyway. Ideas would become the new currency of politics.

I don't feel sorry for all the glad-hands that would be replaced by real people. They can get jobs selling cars and dishwashers.