But, there they were, in living color on C-SPAN, debating how to best limit the contradictory political speech of the voters back home. Compounding the shame of it all was the vote on an amendment submitted by Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX) which would have prohibited the campaign finance "reform" bill under discussion from violating the First Amendment. You know, the Amendment that starts out with the words, "Congress shall make no law" and then includes, "abridging the freedom of speech."

Throughout our history, political speech has always had the highest protection. Not anymore, though. If HR-2356 is signed into law by President Bush, the only ones allowed to place political ads or publish political commentary will be the media and the campaign committees. Citizens will have to dummy up for the 30 days preceding a primary election and for 60 days preceding a general election. Which means, candidates can tell any lies they wish without fear of contradiction by us pesky little serf- citizens.

Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) nailed it: "Only in Washington could a massive new federal bureaucracy be proposed, and constitutional freedoms stripped away, while supportive politicians are lauded by national newspaper editorials for having the ’courage’ to support ’reform’ legislation. … More importantly, only in Washington could media-driven support for such an atrocious piece of legislation take precedence over stimulating an economy in crisis and creating jobs for working Americans. … Under this legislation, Americans could actually be sent to jail for airing their thoughts on a particular candidate or policy issue."⁽¹⁾

The bill passed the House 240-189. It now goes back to the Senate, which passed a nearly identical bill last year. The tally is 41 wayward Republicans, one independent and 198 socialist-Democrats approving the unconstitutional bill. There were 176 Republicans, one independent and just 12 Democrats, opposing.

Does this tell us a little about which political party should be favored next November?

Like Bob Barr, House GOP whip, Rep. Tom DeLay, understands: "This bill does not contain real reform. Instead, this bill strips citizens of their political rights and unconstitutionally attempts to regulate political speech."

Thad Kousser and Ray LaRaja at Cato⁽²⁾ just published a very informative report on the issue in which they show that soft money to political parties, which disproportionately benefits challengers, is outlawed, as is anonymous soft money that funds advertisements within 60 days of elections.

Exactly. The controlling political class has finally succeeded in limiting the political speech of the people. If the bill is signed into law, it will be illegal to criticize a candidate 60 days before an election.

Also, as David M. Mason, Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, wrote in a Heritage Foundation report, "certain significant provisions of Shays-Meehan are so complex, so vague, or so broad as to be unworkable or unenforceable." Mason also says that, "some provisions of Shays-Meehan (the 30/60 day ’electioneering’ black-out, for instance) are flatly unconstitutional" and that other provisions raise significant constitutional difficulties.⁽³⁾

The point is, anything affecting incumbents is intentionally very vague. Only those restrictions on citizens are straightforward and harsh. Congress would never pass a bill to limit themselves. They intend to rule the people with a heavy hand, not inconvenience their chance for reelection. Clearly, anyone expecting them to limit themselves is just not paying attention.

However, the glass is still half full. In the face of any adversity, there is usually some opportunity.

These fools evidently do not have any understanding whatsoever of what they just caused. The law of unintended consequences supersedes anything Congress can pass.

For one thing, they will never limit our speech on the Internet. This publication, for one, will continue on as always. But, that’s just a drop in the bucket. The unintended consequences will be far reaching, and potentially very detrimental, for incumbent campaigns.

Remember, there is the new 60 day rule. If citizens’ groups cannot place political ads 60 days preceding an election, they will have to place the spots earlier -- at a time when there are very few campaign ads running and more people will pay attention to politically motivated ads. Which means, with a little finessing of the subject material, the ads can be used to implant firm opinions in the minds of many voters before the actual campaigning by the incumbent starts.

Incumbents, then, will have to counter these early ads placed by citizens’ groups. Which means, the direction of an incumbent’s campaign will then be led by the nose to the topics already set by the earlier spots. This will drastically eat into campaign funds and not allow the incumbent to advertise the message the campaign wants to get out as much as they wished -- such as attack ads on the opponent.

So, as this stupid and unconstitutional new law winds its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court for a unanimous thrashing, we who get involved in campaign activities will develop new -- and as yet unsuspected -- methods to aggravate the incompetents who approved it. They opened a few new doors. We shall enter and be all set up before they have time to get there.

On the other hand, we could all join together to inform President Bush that we feel this would be a very good time to bring out his veto pen. He is supposed to defend the Constitution for us, after all.