McCain-Feingold Iron Curtain Roundup
I think this DC Examiner editorial that I linked to earlier this week has ignited a blogospheric protest over the McCain-Feingold 60-day restriction on free speech. What's remarkable is that the MSM is largely silent on the issue. Therefore, let me link to the several bloggers who have decided to GO AROUND the MSM and report to you the grave implications of this awful day.
(FYI...in my opinion, the following links aren't even HALF of the blogs who are writing about this -- Pat Hynes, please pass this message along to your client).
First up, is David Boaz of the Cato Institute. He writes, "What would McCain, Feingold, and the New York Times say if the U.S.-backed government in Iraq banned any criticism of itself for the next 60 days? Would they say "one giant step toward democracy"? I doubt it."
John Samples, also of the Cato Institute chimes in, "Today McCain-Feingold's 60-day window on electioneering communications opens. Perhaps a better metaphor would be that the window slams shut."
Matt Johnston of Going to the Mat provides a historical perspective, "Not since the Alien and Sedition Acts of the late 18th Century, a stain on the early American history, have we faced such restrictions on our ability to criticize the government and the representatives who are, after all, beholden to our votes to keep them in office."
Jacob Sullum writes, "It seems Americans now need permission to speak out on political issues and petition the government. I'd suggest a constitutional amendment protecting those rights, but I thought we already had one."
Trevor Bothwell at Who's Your Nanny headlines a blog post called "RINOs for Censorship" that links to my blog post that lists the Republicans who voted YES on McCain-Feingold.
Betsy Newmark, one of my favorite bloggers, looks ahead to two years down the road, "It's a good week to remember what this bill has wrought, especially as its two sponsors are now running for president in 2008."
The blogging godfather, Glenn Reynolds, echoes, "It's wrong, it's unAmerican, and it's the single best argument against either McCain or Feingold running for President in 2008[.]"
Bill Hobbs is offering to run advertisements on his website to anyone who wants to be critical of Democrats and/or GOP Congressman Zack Wamp, who voted YES on McCain-Feingold.
Mike Krempasky of RedState.com pens, "You might not have noticed, but your right to participate in this fall's elections just got a heck of a lot smaller."
I linked to Ryan Sager's wonderful article earlier this week, but I'll do it again now. He writes, "there's a tremendous arrogance in the idea of even trying to determine what speech is legitimate and what is unwanted. Who gets to decide? The answer is simple: Incumbents (a k a congressmen) do. And their only agenda is to hold onto what they've got: their incumbency."
NewsBusters.org offers this idea, "Bloggers should consider coming together from both sides to challenge this un-democratic law by developing a series of podcast or YouTube commercials pointing out what they see as negative points regarding incumbents."
Here's a mini-roundup by the Says Uncle blog.
Jonathan R. at GOP Bloggers makes a very profound statement, "Think about it again: it is a crime, punishable under the law, to air an advertisement that criticizes a member of Congress during election season."
Warren Meyer at the Coyote Blog writes an obituary-like blog post mourning the loss of free speech until election day. "John McCain, Russ Feingold, and everyone who voted for this un-American incumbent protection act need to be voted out of office at our next opportunity."
Doug at Considerettes asks, "Feeling less free today?"
Erica at OverCriminalization.com takes a legal whack at it, "This Act is a particularly egregious example of overcriminalization because it not only criminalizes behavior that is beyond the traditional boundary of inherently wrongful conduct, it actually brings the heavy hammer of the criminal law against constitutionally protected conduct."
Bruce Kesler notes the hypocrisy behind McCain's "Straight Talk Express".
Bill Quick at Daily Pundit has some strong feelings about it, "It is an abomnination, and probably the single biggest reason I will never, ever vote for McCain for anything, let alone President."
Finally, let's end this roundup at the desk where the buck was supposed to have stopped. Here's the official White House statement that President Bush gave after signing McCain-Feingold into law in 2002. It includes, "...the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns."
Posted at Andrew Roth at 5:55 PM | TrackBack
