15 January 2006

Only politicians and Old Media can be trusted with such powers

[source, source]

If you think such fretting is silly, says Bradley Smith, consider the case of Bill Liles, who faced an FEC inquiry when Smith was commissioner. In 2000, a businessman in the little Texas town of Muleshoe, Harvey Bass, painted save our nation: vote democrat al gore for president on a beat-up box and plunked it on his furniture store’s porch. Sick of looking at it, Liles and a friend pasted a “bigger and better” poster praising W. on a trailer and parked it right across from Bass’s store. This was too much for another local, Don Dyer, who complained to the FEC that Liles’s sign lacked mandated disclosures about who paid for it and whether Bush had signed off on it.

Though the FEC in the end let Liles and his fellow activists off, the men had in fact broken not just disclosure rules but any number of other regulations, too, recalls Smith. They had clearly spent a bit more than $250 on their makeshift sign, for example, but hadn’t reported it, as required, to the FEC. “Total statutory penalties could have easily exceeded $25,000,” Smith observes. How different is Liles’s praiseworthy activism from that of many political bloggers? The medium differs, but Liles, like a blogger, is simply voicing his opinion. And this was pre-McCain-Feingold.

This isn’t an aberration, this is the goal of the campaign finance “reform” factions.

Posted by orbital at 11:08 AM | View 0 TrackBacks | Trackback URL

There you go with that oppressive patriarchal logic again

Al Gore Plans to Rail Against Bush‘s “Police State”

Yet, oddly enough, he won’t spend a second in jail afterward. And he knows it.

Junkyard Blog

Because Modern American Leftists like Gore have long since abandoned any meaning to words, relying instead completey on connotations.

Posted by orbital at 10:49 AM | View 0 TrackBacks | Trackback URL

Powers for me but not for thee


[…] But the fact of the Congressional subpoena power does not make Teddy Kennedy any less a hypocrite in demanding the coercive extraction of the records of a political organization. We need to say it again: Senator Kennedy took the scary position that it was just and appropriate for the Congress to extract by coercion the private, internal records of a political advocacy group just because it was considering the nomination of a person who had once been a member of that organization.

To understand how weird this is, consider the following “thought experiment”: If the next Democratic SCOTUS nominee once belonged to the American Civil Liberties Union(as Ruth Bader Ginsburg actually did) and, say, Sam Brownback proposed issuing a subpoena for the “records” of the ACLU to help him “understand” the nominee’s testimony, what do you imagine the reaction of the mainstream media might be? The implications of Senator Kennedy’s demand for freedom of speech and association are appalling. Where’s the outrage?

It’s hardly unusual for the Democratic Party to demand powers for the federal government on the presumption that such powers would be used only by the Democratic Party. Sadly, they are often correct about this, which just encourages such power grabbing.

Posted by orbital at 10:10 AM | View 0 TrackBacks | Trackback URL