Ohmygod! Someone advise Schmerl that the blasted Browne campaign is about to violate the law! He has to file suit quickly to enforce these federal statutes which are the only way a "real" political party can operate a campaign.
Not holding my breath,
- Mikey
>From: "Alan Fanning" <[email protected]>
>
>It seems that Arizona is not the only place where campaign/election laws
>are seen as an opportunity for useful publicity. What do you think
>about Browne taking it national?
>
>--Alan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: LibertyWire [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 2:05 AM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Harry Browne may challenge campaign finance laws
>
>
>NOTE: Please forward this message to your Libertarian friends
> who may not subscribe to LibertyWire. Thank you!
>
>
>|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|
>
>
>A very important message from Harry Browne
>
>Dear friend,
>
>We have come across what may be an exceptional opportunity to
>strike a blow against oppressive government -- while at the same
>time generating major national press coverage for our campaign.
>
>How?
>
>By deliberately violating the campaign laws -- the contribution
>limits and reporting requirements imposed by the Federal Election
>Commission (FEC).
>
>There are three major benefits this project could produce for
>Libertarians in the short and long term:
>
>1. An act of civil disobedience against these repressive laws will
>truly be a "man bites dog" story. Announcing our intention to willfully
>violate these regulations might generate more national media coverage
>than anything the LP has ever done.
>
>2. This action can reverse the debate about campaign finance reform.
>Currently, everyone is focused on possible new campaign restrictions.
>But if we challenge the very idea of such laws, we could turn the
>debate upside down. From then on, every discussion of campaign finance
>is likely to mention our defiance of the existing laws. And every
>counter-move by the FEC against us should generate still more
>publicity -- publicity that should be worth every penny we pay in
>legal bills, plus any fines if we lose our case.
>
>3. Campaign finance laws are more harmful to us than even the
>ballot-access requirements. They limit the money we can legally
>raise to counter the enormous free publicity the Democrats and
>Republicans receive -- not to mention the tens of millions of
>dollars they confiscate from taxpayers to run their presidential
>campaigns. If we win the case, the end of contribution limits
>would go a long way to level the playing field.
>
>*** Why now?
>
>We considered launching this challenge in 1996, but the time didn't seem
>ripe. Now, however, we're much larger, much stronger, and much better
>able
>to handle such a case. And it is during the campaign that we especially
>want
>the publicity that will flow from the case.
>
>There has to be an actual violation to trigger a judicial review of the
>law.
>And so we must disobey the law, have the FEC charge the campaign with a
>crime, and then take the case all the way to the Supreme Court.
>
>*** But haven't these laws been challenged before?
>
>Some of them, but only on narrow grounds. Usually, the Supreme Court
>limits
>any ruling to the case at hand, and no case has actually focused on the
>overall concept of the government regulating what individuals can do in
>a
>political campaign. But the Court has hinted in opinions that it would
>be
>willing to review the entire concept behind campaign finance laws.
>And now along comes a Libertarian candidate who wants to challenge
>everything -- contribution limits, spending limits, reporting,
>everything!
>This is the perfect opportunity for the Court to rule on the central
>issue:
>Do politicians have the right to make rules that restrict the ability of
>their political opponents to compete?
>
>*** Why challenge the reporting of contributions?
>
>Isn't it universally acknowledged that secrecy is bad and "full
>disclosure"
>is a great virtue? Originally we intended only to challenge the $1,000
>contribution limit. We thought that was the most vulnerable part of the
>system -- especially since the $1,000 limit has never been adjusted for
>inflation.
>
>But our attorneys tell us that such a narrow challenge would actually
>weaken
>our case. The constitutional reasoning that forbids having a
>contribution
>limit applies equally to compulsory reporting, and it would be
>inconsistent
>to challenge one without the other. And, as I'll explain in a moment,
>there
>is a strong case to be made against compulsory reporting.
>
>*** What are our arguments?
>
>The case we finally present will evolve from the research of our
>attorneys.
>But certain arguments seem obvious. . . .
>
>1. Freedom of the press
>
>News organizations are free to provide lavish press coverage of the
>major
>parties. And they can raise, invest, and spend as much money as they
>want on such coverage -- exempt from any limit by the constitutional
>guarantee of "freedom of the press."
>
>A smaller, less-known political party can offset this kind of coverage
>and
>get the public's attention only by spending tens of millions of dollars
>on
>advertising. But the contribution limit prevents us from raising that
>kind
>of money.
>
>We will argue that political campaigns are also "presses" --
>opportunities
>for people to express their opinions, just as newspapers and broadcast
>networks do -- and that campaigns should be equally free to raise money
>to
>express ideas.
>
>2. Freedom of assembly
>
>Citizens have a right to join together with candidates and campaign
>organizations to express political opinions, and any financial
>restriction
>on their ability to do so is effectively a restriction on their right to
>assemble.
>
>3. The right to privacy
>
>The Supreme Court has identified what it considers to be an implied
>right to privacy in the Constitution. In fact, the right isn't implied
>at all; it's real. The 9th Amendment makes it very clear that you retain
>any right not specifically taken away by the Constitution.
>
>The Supreme Court has ignored the 9th Amendment in the past several
>decades,
>but we can reestablish it with this case. If we win, it would reinforce
>all
>sorts of rights that the Constitution says you never gave up -- such as
>the
>right to privacy or the right to defend yourself without arguing over
>the
>definition of a "militia."
>
>The right to privacy can be inferred as well from the secret ballot. If
>a
>voter can support a candidate with a secret vote, why can't he make a
>secret
>contribution?
>
>There is good reason to allow secret donations. Public disclosure gives
>winning candidates the power to exact retribution on supporters of
>losing
>campaigns. That this power is real is evident by the vast number of
>people
>who contribute to both major parties. Many other people avoid
>contributing
>altogether rather than allow their names to appear on an FEC report.
>Lastly, why should politicians decide on what basis you will judge
>candidates? If you think reporting is necessary, you can simply refuse
>to
>support any candidate who won't report contributions -- just as you can
>refrain from buying a product from a company that doesn't provide enough
>information to satisfy you. And if you think reporting isn't necessary,
>why
>should your campaign contribution be eaten up by the costs of filing
>endless
>forms with the government?
>
>4. Equal protection under the law
>
>The law permits a wealthy candidate to finance his own campaign without
>any
>financial limit. But shouldn't groups of citizens be permitted to
>combine
>their resources to equal the amounts a wealthy candidate can spend? And
>shouldn't a wealthy individual be permitted to finance the campaign of
>someone else to speak for him?
>
>5. Due process
>
>Campaign finance violations aren't judged by courts or juries, but by a
>star-chamber of political appointees -- all of whom just happen to be
>Democrats and Republicans. Political parties shouldn't have this kind of
>power over their competitors.
>
>*** Rebuttal
>
>Clearly, we have a very strong case. But the government isn't going to
>roll
>over and play dead when we challenge it.
>
>Whenever the government violates any part of the Bill of Rights, it
>claims
>to have a "compelling interest" that overrides the interests of
>individuals.
>Of course, nothing in the Constitution allows the Bill of Rights to be
>discarded for the convenience of the government. Any shortcoming in the
>Constitution is supposed to be remedied through the amendment process.
>
>But that hasn't stopped the Executive branch, Congress, or the Supreme
>Court
>from treating the "compelling interest" notion with respect. And we will
>have to make strong arguments that there is no compelling interest for
>the
>government to trash the Constitution in this case.
>
>*** Government doesn't work
>
>One such argument is that the campaign finance laws don't work.
>Strangely,
>the best proof of that is the laws themselves. Every campaign reform is
>passed in response to apparent abuses (such as lavish use of soft money
>and
>PACs) that were generated by previous campaign finance laws. If the laws
>achieved their purpose, there wouldn't be perpetual agonizing over all
>the
>abuses.
>
>Today's concerted push to add yet more campaign restrictions makes it
>obvious that the existing regulations don't achieve the results
>intended.
>So where is the compelling governmental interest in preserving or
>extending
>them?
>
>Of course, you and I know that the answer to the problems of lobbyists,
>special interests, and the potential buying of legislators is to
>strictly
>enforce the 10th Amendment. That would restrict the politicians to just
>what's authorized in the Constitution and leave nothing for the special
>interests to fight over. But don't hold your breath waiting for the
>Supreme
>Court to be impressed by that idea.
>
>*** We have a chance to win the case
>
>Instead, if we focus on the constitutional arguments I've listed, we
>believe
>we have a chance to win this case and accelerate the LP's movement
>toward
>major-party status.
>
>But even if we don't win, the case will bring our campaign to the
>attention
>of the American people and the press.
>
>*** What are the risks?
>
>There appears to be no risk of criminal prosecution from defying either
>the
>contribution limit or the reporting rules. But there could be large
>fines if we lose our challenge. The two relevant considerations are:
>(1) whether those fines would be so large that we couldn't pay them, and
>(2) whether a final verdict would be rendered before Election Day,
>interfering with the campaign.
>
>However, both questions point up the public relations advantage the case
>offers. We will work to ensure that any large fines or interference with
>our
>campaign probably will be seen by the press and the public as a case of
>a
>small political campaign being squashed by the big parties.
>
>We are simply trying to exercise our 1st Amendment rights and correct
>horrible inequities in the system. And since we have no special-interest
>favors to peddle, we will be seen as a Simon-pure party fighting for
>equality. The David Broders and Rush Limbaughs of the media already
>testify
>to our purity. So the Justice Department will create a public relations
>quagmire for themselves if they try to bankrupt us or otherwise
>interfere
>with the campaign.
>
>We will be David opposing Goliath. And whatever people may think about
>campaign finance reform, it seems likely that public opinion will be on
>our
>side in this case.
>
>In addition, it's highly unlikely that the case will be settled before
>Election Day. More likely, it could be years before there's a final
>resolution.
>
>Even so, we must tread carefully. We must have realistic estimates of
>the
>likely penalties if we should lose, we must determine whether we could
>pay
>those penalties, and we must judge whether that cost and the associated
>legal bills are outweighed by the publicity gained.
>
>Fortunately, we're discussing this with a legal firm that has extensive
>experience in constitutional cases of this kind. And we want to
>commission
>it to do the research to determine how much chance we have to win the
>case
>and precisely what the risks are.
>
>Until that research is completed and we've decided whether to proceed
>further, we won't file any reports with the FEC. To do so would indicate
>our
>acceptance of their jurisdiction and weaken our case. If we decide not
>to
>proceed, we'll file then and pay the small penalties we'll have incurred
>for
>tardy reporting.
>
>In the meantime, we'll continue to keep records that comply with all the
>regulations -- so we can actually file and refund any over-limit
>contributions if we lose the case.
>
>*** Are there any risks to campaign contributors?
>
>No matter what happens in the case, there can be no legal liability for
>anyone whose contribution is within the $1,000 limit.
>
>*** Who will participate in our campaign of civil disobedience?
>
>The job of defying the government falls mainly to Campaign Manager Perry
>Willis and to me.
>
>However, if the attorneys' research prompts us to proceed, we will need
>donors who are willing to deliberately exceed the $1,000 campaign
>contribution limit. If many people do so, it will establish a broad base
>for
>the fight against the limit. The more people involved, the better for
>our
>case and the more publicity we can generate.
>
>If you contribute an amount above the $1,000 limit and we lose the case,
>you might incur a small fine.
>
>If you would like to be a Libertarian hero by violating the contribution
>limit, let us know and we'll get back to you when we have a better idea
>of what your risk actually will be. Please do not send an over-limit
>donation now.
>
>You can indicate your willingness to participate by checking the yellow
>box in the online contribution form on our web site, or by checking the
>appropriate box on the form below if you are mailing a check.
>
>Incidentally, our case for overturning the law will benefit from the
>fact
>that the over-limit contributors have no hope of winning
>special-interest
>favors from the government, even if we were to win the election.
>
>*** How much will our legal challenge cost and how will we pay for it?
>
>If we go ahead with the challenge, the eventual cost of the case could
>run
>several hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, we believe we can
>attract
>political and financial support from people of many political stripes
>who
>oppose the campaign laws. We may set up a separate legal defense fund,
>and
>there may be many wealthy people willing to contribute to it.
>
>But before we get to that point, our lawyers need to research the case
>and
>evaluate the risks. That way we can make an informed decision about
>whether
>to proceed (as we expect to) or not to proceed (if penalties or dangers
>are
>uncovered that we haven't been aware of).
>
>It will take $25,000 for the attorneys to do the research. Funding for
>it
>will have to come from people like you -- people who can contribute
>within
>the legal limits without any risk at all.
>
>*** Your help is needed.
>
>We need to raise the $25,000 right away. If it turns out the challenge
>doesn't make sense, we need to know that quickly, so we can file and
>limit
>the late penalties. If it turns out we can proceed, we want to begin our
>defiance soon enough to reap the press coverage and start raising
>over-limit contributions.
>
>Your immediate contribution of $1,000, $500, $250, $100, $50, $25, or
>even $10 will help us get this effort underway. It is perfectly legal as
>long as the total of all your contributions doesn't exceed $1,000.
>(Don't
>forget that your spouse also can donate $1,000.)
>
>However this turns out, we plan to create a plaque showing the names of
>all
>who give $100 or more to this effort. We will present the plaque to the
>Libertarian National Committee at the end of the campaign, to be
>displayed
>at party headquarters.
>
>This is your chance to be a part of history. I hope we can count on
>your support.
>
>You can make your contribution online at the following web address:
>https://www.webcommanders.com/donate/fec-fund.htm or through the mail
>by printing out the form appended below and mailing it in your own
>envelope.
>
>Also, if you would be so kind, please send an email message about
>your contribution to my Campaign Manager, Perry Willis. Simply
>mailto:[email protected]. All you have to do is enter the
>dollar amount of your contribution in your message's subject line.
>Perry wants to closely monitor how much interest there is in this
>project.
>
>Thank you!
>
> With best wishes,
>
> Harry Browne
>
>P.S.-- Imagine the articles in newspapers around America: "Libertarian
>Presidential Candidate Harry Browne Defies Campaign Finance Laws."
>Whenever
>I'm asked why I'm doing this, I'll say that it's because the campaign
>laws
>prevent me from letting Americans know they have the choice to vote to
>repeal the income tax entirely, free themselves from the Social Security
>tax, and end the insane War on Drugs.
>
>You often hear the expression "This is publicity that money can't buy."
>But
>in fact it does take money to get good publicity. I hope you'll help us
>make it possible.
>
>Please visit https://www.webcommanders.com/donate/fec-fund.htm right
>now, or use the form below to send your very best contribution today.
>And thanks again.
>
>
>- - - - - - DONOR FORM - PLEASE PRINT & CUT
>HERE - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
>YES, Harry! I want to help you fight the campaign finance laws!
>
>[ ] ALSO, I might want to be a hero! Please let me know
> what potential FEC fines I might incur by violating
> federal contribution limits. I may decide to participate
> in your campaign of civil disobedience.
>
>I understand that if I contribute $100 or more to this project my name
>will be added to a special plaque to be presented to the Libertarian
>National Committee at the end of the campaign for permanent display in
>national party headquarters.
>
>Here's my contribution of:
>
>[ ] $1,000 [ ] $750 [ ] $500 [ ] $250
>
>[ ] $100 [ ] $50 [ ] $25 [ ] $10 [ ] Other $_____
>
>
>First Name _________________________________________
>
>Last Name __________________________________________
>
>Address ____________________________________________
>
>City _______________________________________________
>
>State _______
>
>Zip Code ___________________________________________
>
>Phone (day) ________________________________________
>
>Phone (evening) ____________________________________
>
>Email Address ______________________________________
>
>Employer ___________________________________________
>
>Occupation _________________________________________
>
>Federal law requires political committees to report
>the name, mailing address, and occupation and name of
>employer for each individual whose contributions
>aggregate in excess of $200 in a calendar year. Political
>contributions are NOT tax-deductIble and corporate
>donations are NOT permitted. According to current FEC
>regulations, individuals may contribute up to $1,000
>prior to a candidate's nomination, and may contribute
>an additional $1,000 thereafter.
>
>PAYMENT OPTIONS:
>
>[ ] My check is enclosed made payable to Harry Browne for President.
>
>[ ] I want to pay by credit card:
>
> [ ]Visa [ ] MasterCard [ ] American Express [ ] Discover Card
>
>Account number ____________________________________
>
>Name on card ______________________________________
>
>Month card expires ______ Year card expires ______
>
>
>Please address your envelope to: Harry Browne for President
> Data Processing Center
> PMB 212
> 4740 East Sunrise Drive
> Tucson, AZ 85718-4535
>
>
>|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|
>
>
>L i b e r t y W i r e
>is a service of the
>Harry Browne 2000 Exploratory Committee
>3509 Connecticut Avenue NW/Suite 2000
>Washington, DC 20008-2470
>202-521-1200
>http://www.HarryBrowne2000.org
>Mailto:[email protected]
>
>TO SUBSCRIBE,
>to this list
>mailto:[email protected]
>with the words
> subscribe LibertyWire
>on the first line of the body of the message.
>Please leave the rest of the message blank.
>
>TO UNSUBSCRIBE,
>from this list
>mailto:[email protected]
>with the words
> unsubscribe LibertyWire
>on the first line of the body of the message.
>Please leave the rest of the message blank.
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>MAXIMIZE YOUR CARD, MINIMIZE YOUR RATE!
>Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as
>0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.
>Apply NOW!
>http://click.egroups.com/1/2122/3/_/651528/_/952888583/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Community email addresses:
> Post message: [email protected]
> Subscribe: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> List owner: [email protected]
> Web site: www.lpaz.org
>
>Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-discuss
>
>
>
Community email addresses:
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
List owner: [email protected]
Web site: www.lpaz.org
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-discuss