Bush Opposes First Amendment
Bloomberg reports: the President Bush wants a court order that would require the U.S. Federal Election Commission to prohibit any and all political advertising by independent groups:
Bush asked Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, to help end advertising by political organizations known as 527 groups, named for the section of the Internal Revenue Service code that grants them tax-exempt status. ... ``The president said he wanted to work together to pursue court action to stop all activities by these shadowy 527 groups,'' McClellan told reporters on Air Force One en route to New Mexico. `` If court action doesn't work, he is willing to pursue legislative action,'' McClellan said.
It should be noted that one of the provisions of being a 527 group is that all donors must be publicly identified. Thus, labeling them as “shadowy” is deceitful.
That aside, however, consider very carefully what the above report says: the President of the United States wants a federal court to eliminate the freedom of “independent groups” (i.e., groups that aren’t political parties or perhaps affiliated with political parties) from engaging in political speech by purchasing advertisements that advocate for a particular political position (like whom one should vote for).
Ed Brayton has a nice summary of what’s wrong with this:
A. It's blatantly unconstitutional. And Bush knows it, because during the 2000 election, he said that he would veto such a law because it violates the first amendment's free speech protections. He then went back on his promise to veto the law, and McLellan said the other day that Bush THOUGHT the law he signed DID ban political ads by independent groups. It does not, of course. And now Bush wants a judge to issue a court order to do what he thought the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform bill did. Which brings us to:
B. Judicial Activism. Isn't it Bush and the conservatives who go ballistic whenever those "unelected judges" ignore the "clear text of the constitution" to "legislate from the bench"? When a judge determines that an unenumerated right deserves protection, the right wing howls in indignation. Now Bush wants an unelected judge to outlaw what is not only clearly legal political speech, but to do the job that he stupidly thought he had already done, and even worse to go against the clear text of the first amendment in the process? I'll take rank hypocrisy for $1000, Alex.
C. It only helps Republicans. Republicans raise almost all of their campaign money through the campaign organizations and the parties. In the 2004 election cycle, the Republican party apparatus has raised $256 million to only $115 million for the Democrats. But in the 527 organizations, independent groups taking out ads advocating general positions rather than a specific candidate, the opposite is true, by a margin of about $130 million to $18 million. So all Bush is doing is advocating a law that would harm his opponents and not him. Pure partisan gameplaying.
D. It consolidates power in the hands of the parties rather than the people. By banning individuals and groups of individuals from taking out political ads, it means that only the candidates and the parties have the right to take out ads to persuade others and advocate their ideas. Only the parties and the candidates would have access to the airwaves, and hence to the public. Great idea, George. Let's give the parties even more of a monopoly on shaping public opinion.
Mad yet? Well, you’re probably not nearly as mad as Ed is:
George W. Bush, you hypocritical, self-serving liar, you took an oath to uphold the Constitution. You stood there with your hand on the bible and swore an oath. Remember all those speeches you've given about how our brave military men are fighting to protect our Constitutional rights? You were lying through your teeth. ... If there is a single member of Congress with any loyalty to the Constitution at all, impeachment proceedings should be started immediately.
Impeachment? Whatever for? All he’s doing is proposing that a federal court strip independent groups of their First Amendment right to free speech. It’s not as if he’s doing something truly heinous, like getting oral sex from an intern in his office and they trying to avoid admitting it. That would be grounds for impeachment. Staining the Constitution is a minor matter, staining a blue dress, however, is a matter for 24-hour news coverage.
All sarcasm aside, I think that Ed is right in his analysis above. I for one don’t believe that Bush thought he was signing a law banning such groups — I know that laws today are very complex, but if what he says is true, he doesn’t have the IQ to justify any job in the White House, much less that of President. I think he’s lying and I don’t think that a person who wants to ban political speech from “independent” groups deserves to be President, either.
Read More:
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment