Prior to 1974 FREE PRESS was the Right of every U.S. Citizen. We did - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Prior to 1974 “FREE PRESS” was the Right of every U.S. Citizen. We did not have to register with ask permission of

• r report to a state or federal agency

to distribute political handbills endorsing or opposing candidates or promoting political ideas. That was the America I grew up in!

Campaign finance laws define "We The People" as the "regulated classes" and the "institutional press" as the "exempted classes". Our state and federal constitutions enumerated "free press" as the "RIGHT" of "We The People"!

The Federal Press Exemption 2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term "expenditure" does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate; 2 U.S.C. 431 (9) (B) (i) defines "free press" as the "unregulated Right" of "Media Businesses. U.S. Citizens, political parties and political organizations are the "Regulated Classes"!

Campaign Finance Law Is A Body Of Law built on a Statutory Definition Of Free Press As An Exclusive Right Of Business.

Regulated Community Included below an excerpt from Mitch McConnell's July 8, 1998 letter to his constituent Richard Lewis Section 431(9)(B)(i) makes a distinction where there is no real difference: the media is extremely powerful by any measure, a "special interest" by any definition, and heavily engaged in the "issue advocacy" and "independent expenditure" realms of political persuasion that most editorial boards find so

• bjectionable when anyone other than a media outlet engages in
• it. To illustrate the absurdity of this special exemption the media

enjoys, I frequently cite as an example the fact that if the RNC bought NBC from GE the FEC would regulate the evening news and, under the McCain-Feingold "reform" bill, Tom Brokaw could not mention a candidate 60 days before an election. This is patently absurd.

On COORDINATED SPENDING REGULATIONS FEC OPEN MEETING - NOVEMBER 16, 2000 I understand that the usual critics of the FEC and its staff – among them the Brennan Center, Common Cause, and Democracy 21 – will complain that these regulations will make it more difficult to prove coordination. But the mere fact that a regulation sets forth a standard that provides broad protection to what we euphemistically call "the regulated community" (i.e., the American people), does not mean that the standard is wrong or unrealistic. It simply affirms that there are other important values at stake. Here those values are obvious – the right of Americans to engage in political discussion and activity and to petition their representatives for a redress of grievances.

LIVING PERSONS: In the ERA that our First Amendment was adopted "Enumerated Rights" existed only for "Human Beings".

Corporations were Not recognized as legal [p]ersons in the United States prior to 1896. [ pages 347-359 Who Will Tell The

People paperback by Willam Greider ]

INFORMED CONSENT IS THE FOUNDATION OF U.S. Law

KENTUCKY BILL OF RIGHTS Section 8. Freedom of speech and of the press.

Printing presses shall be free to every person who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the General Assembly or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. Every person may freely and fully speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

Text as ratified on: August 3, 1891, and revised September 28, 1891. History: Not yet amend

Section 26. General powers subordinate to Bill of Rights – Laws contrary thereto are void. To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void.

Text as ratified on: August 3, 1891, and revised September 28, 1891. History: Not yet amended

The Kentucky Legislature Has made Four Attempts To Define “Free Press”As An Exclusive Right of Media Businesses. HB 750 in 2000, Senate Bill 159 in 2007, Senate Bill 8, in 2008 Senate Bill 62 in 2009 They Did Not Inform Or Seek Our Consent !

In 1999 Michael Lewis, John Riley and Richard Lewis filed complaints with the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance alleging that the Courier Journal and Lexington Leader had failed to register and report their political endorsements to the Registry. This was a portion of the response by the Courier Journals

• attorney. “And, that what these complainants are requesting
• f the Registry today is as offensive as anything could be to

the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Remember Freedom Of The Press Was The Right of Human Beings, “Living Persons” before Businesses Were Recognized In U.S. Law As Legal Persons!

What is a press or media exemption? [1] It is a law that exempts some “legal persons”, newspaper, magazine and broadcast businesses from campaign finance laws. These “legal persons” are not required to register with and report their funding and political activities to the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance and the definitions of independent expenditure, in kind contribution, express advocacy, coordination and issue advocacy do not apply to their political activities! [2] it is a law that defines “living persons”, as “regulated classes” and requires them to register with and report their political activities to the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance. The definitions of independent expenditure, in kind contribution, express advocacy, coordination and issue advocacy restrict and regulate their political activities.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION [1] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791.

Congress Shall Make No Law Meant That Congress Left The Definition Of a Free Press to The States.

In 1974 using Watergate as an Excuse: Congress Violated The First Amendment and Passed a Statute Defining Free Press as The Exclusive Right of "Legal Persons" Specifically Newspaper and Broadcast Businesses, Periodic Publications and

• Magazines. This Law Is Commonly

Referred to As The Press Exemption 52 U.S.

Code § 30101 –(9) (B) (i) Definition Formerly found at 2 U.S.C. 431 (9) (B) (i)

Not until the 1974 Amendments to the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA) did the federal government pass a campaign finance law with any serious enforcement mechanism.

Testimony By Bradley A. Smith February 27, 1997 Committee on the Judiciary

And it was also this law which, for the first time, gave us both contribution limits and, as a necessary accessory to those limits, the strange doctrines of independent expenditures and express advocacy.

Testimony By Bradley A. Smith February 27, 1997 Committee on the Judiciary

The Statutory Definitions of Independent Expenditure and Express Advocacy in combination with the Statutory Definition of "Free Press" as An Exclusive Right Of Business Rather Than a "Right" of "Living Persons" Is the Foundation of Campaign Finance Law.

KENTUCKY BILL OF RIGHTS Section 8. Freedom of speech and of the press.

Printing presses shall be free to every person who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the General Assembly or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. Every person may freely and fully speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

Text as ratified on: August 3, 1891, and revised September 28, 1891. History: Not yet amend

The Truth: The commercial media did not support federal campaign finance reform until their lobbyist convinced congress to exempt them from the regulations that would restrict every living U.S. Citizen, political party and political organization's press rights!

The so called "fourth estate" did not defend equal "unalienable press rights" of their readers, viewers and listeners and they did not act as a watchdog of government when they failed to inform the public how the proposed "press exemption" would strip them of the "press rights" they had enjoyed for 184 years.

Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 17, 1787: [1] It is alleged that the liberty of the press is not guaranteed by the new

• constitution. But this objection is wholly
• unfounded. The liberty of the press does

not come within the jurisdiction of federal government.

It is firmly established in all the states either by law, or positive declarations in bills of right; and not being mentioned in the federal constitution, is not and cannot be abridged by Congress, it stands on the basis of the respective state- constitutions.

From CENTINEL, NO. II. Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789 To the People of Pennsylvania FRIENDS. CITIZENS, and FELLOW COUNTRYMEN,

The state of society must be very corrupt and base indeed, when the people in possession of such a monitor as the press, can be induced to exchange the heaven born blessings of liberty for the galling chains of despotism.

As long as the liberty of the press continues unviolated, and the people have the right of expressing and publishing their sentiments upon every public measure, it is next to impossible to enslave a free nation.

Men of an aspiring and tyrannical disposition, sensible of this truth, have ever been inimical to the press, and have considered the shackling of it, as the first step towards the accomplishment of their hateful domination, and the entire suppression of all liberty of public discussion, as necessary to its support.

The Federalist No. 84 Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered Independent Journal Wednesday, July 16, Saturday, July 26, Saturday, August 9, 1788 [Alexander Hamilton] To the People of the State of New York:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be

• dangerous. They would contain various

exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given,

and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.

This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

Excerpts below are from page images 540 and 541 on Elliot's Debates--KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF 1798 AND 1799. [THE ORIGINAL DRAFT PREPARED BY THOMAS JEFFERSON.]

[The following Resolutions passed the House of Representatives of Kentucky ,

• Nov. 10, 1798. On the passage of the 1st

Resolution, one dissentient; 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, two dissentients; 9th, three dissentients.]

• 3. Resolved, That it is true, as a general

principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people;"

and that, no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press, being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the states, or to the people;

Testimony

Campaign Finance Reform Propsals and the First Amendment

By Bradley A. Smith February 27, 1997 Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution United States House of Representatives

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for inviting me to testify before you today. By way of introduction, I am an Associate Professor of Law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio, where I teach, among other subjects, Election Law.

Though I appear today on my own behalf, I am also an Adjunct Scholar of the Cato

• Institute. I have researched and written

extensively, in both academic and popular journals, on the subject of campaign finance.

When a member of Congress so casually treats his oath to uphold the constitution; and when the House minority leader suggests that the First Amendment must itself be amended because free speech “is in direct conflict” with democracy, it is both timely and appropriate for this committee to hold hearings.

Before congress attempts to solve the problems of campaign finance with more regulations burdening free speech rights, we should take stock of the fact that the current regulatory system is responsible for many of the evils we see in campaign finance.

We do not need to plug “loopholes” in the

• system. Rather, we should scrap most all
• f the present system of campaign

finance regulation, remembering the admonition of the First Amendment to the Constitution, that Congress shall make no law abridging the rights of free speech.

Before discussing the details of campaign finance, I think it is important to briefly remind ourselves that, for most of this country’s history, the funding of political campaigns has been totally or largely unregulated.

The federal government did not become involved in campaign finance until this century.

Not until the 1974 Amendments to the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA) did the federal government pass a campaign finance law with any serious enforcement mechanism.

And it was also this law which, for the first time, gave us both contribution limits and, as a necessary accessory to those limits, the strange doctrines of independent expenditures and express advocacy.

The 1974 Amendments threw of web of regulation, with an accompanying enforcement bureaucracy, the FEC, over American politics.

The stated goals of the 1974 FECA Amendments were to lower the cost

• f campaigning, reduce the influence
• f so-called “special interests,” open

up the political system to change, and “restore confidence in government.”

So what has actually happened in the twenty years since the 1974 Amendments took effect?

Well, campaign spending has increased by more than 350 percent; PAC contributions have increased by more than 800 percent; House incumbents, who had previously outspent challengers by approximately 1.5 to 1, now outspend challengers by nearly 4 to 1; .

incumbent reelection rates have risen to record high levels, spurring the demand for term limits; and public confidence in government has fallen to record lows.

Clearly, the 1974 FECA Amendments have been a dismal failure.

The Rule Of Law Will End: If We Allow Lawmakers To Avoid Our Consent By Changing The Definition Of Words In Our Constitution!