posted on December 8, 2002 06:11:20 PM new
There's a problem in the land, or so said the so-called reformers. Powerful organizations, they told us, are taking over our politics. They are drowning out the voice of the people. Democracy is in peril unless we can reconstitute our campaign finance laws to shut these organizations up when elections draw nigh. Need an example? They had one they loved to trot out — the National Rifle Association.
There are many problems with the analysis. One is that the First Amendment's free speech guarantee applies to everyone, even the powerful. Another is that the threat to democracy — at least according to any traditional understanding of democracy — is not people speaking out, but governmental attempts to control these people. [url]And still another problem with the reformers' view is that many of the groups in question — including the NRA, their favorite whipping boy — are nothing more than collections of citizens exercising citizenship. They are the people.
It may serve the purposes of those who don't like the NRA to portray it otherwise. Some references make it seem a dark, menacing force of secretive conspirators. The truth is that it is a group that operates in the open and has 4 million members, some of whom are almost surely your neighbors and friends.[/url]
These people may join the NRA for lots of reasons, such as the training the NRA provides in rifle shooting, but they also join to do what people are supposed to do in a free, self-governing society. They are working together for the political ends to which they subscribe. Their dues are not much — $35 a year. And the average contribution to the political action committee's fund ranges from $12 to $18, I was told.
A powerful group? Yes. But why is it powerful? Some of the answer has to do with passion, I suspect; these people care about their beliefs. The money counts because it facilitates research and communication and other activities. But the biggest reason for the power is that the members and others — including many of America's 70 million or so gun owners — respond with their votes. Talking about the connection between the organization and voters, an NRA lobbyist once said in a speech, "We flush 'em, you bust 'em." Once alerted, voters sympathetic to the NRA will often vote the NRA way.
I myself agree with the NRA more often than I disagree with it. Even some constitutional experts of a gun-controlling disposition now concur with what ought to be obvious to anyone: The Second Amendment establishes a personal right of gun ownership. Despite a dearth of attention to the fact, the legitimate ownership of guns saves many lives each year. [url]And, as the NRA keeps observing, the chances are slim to zero that still another gun law is going to accomplish what so many others have failed to do, namely, prevent the murderous-minded from acquiring the means of their mayhem.
But suppose you disagree with the NRA. Suppose you think its positions lead to bloody consequences. Would that justify you in silencing the group? Obviously not. The NRA does not write the laws. Legislators do. If you think the legislators are writing bad laws and that some are too much under the influence of the NRA, vote against the legislators or start your own group to fight back or do both.[/url]
Don't do as Congress did in passing the McCain-Feingold bill. Among other provisions in this legislation, one says that when elections get near, advocacy groups had better disappear. Mention a federal candidate's name in a political ad on TV or radio close to a primary or general election and, if you did not use political action committee money, you could be in violation of the law. The reformers' rationale, as best I can puzzle it out, is that politics will be purer under this safeguard and that the voters will be protected from critically voiced views that might cause them to make wrong decisions.
Call that democracy or liberty or sound policy if you like, but you will thereby show yourself up as someone who actually has qualms about the people's capacity for self-governance, and if you are running for re-election, you will demonstrate that you are less interested in free speech than a free ride back to office.
Court arguments began last week that will likely lead to a Supreme Court decision deciding whether portions of this law live or die. Let's hope death is the verdict. We do not need to control the speech of the NRA or any other association of citizens. We need to inhibit politicians who have such huge disrespect for their fellow Americans.
Jay Ambrose is director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard Newspapers.
posted on December 8, 2002 06:39:00 PM new
What's your analysis of this, Bear? What point(s) are you trying to make? The article seems to be a collection of complaints with no conclusios or points or suggestions to correction. So, I move next to you, who felt that at least there was some reason to post it. I'll be happy to talk about whatever it is.
posted on December 8, 2002 09:02:00 PM new
The conclusion is "If you don't like the way the government is working, vote for someone who will make a change"
posted on December 8, 2002 09:38:21 PM new
Thank you, Bear. That saying is correct if the system of voting is fair. That article is very naieve or written for the very naieve, then. Unfortunately, with rampant ballot box stuffings, voter fraud of all stripes, and even party moles being sent in to run on both sides of the race, few voters have that sort of confidence anymore in the system to fix all greivences. If we could be assured that only those allowed to vote do vote, all of those who are eligible and want to can, and to have fair and honest elections where a Republican isn't pretending to be a Democrat and win, only to "change sides" three months later after the election back to their "original" political party, only then will voters feel as though their votes mean a damned thing.
posted on December 9, 2002 01:00:25 PM new
Ah! Bear hits the Nail on the Head! Band together -- form a voting block -- express yourselves -- protect your rights.
Traditionally, Bear, We the People have been relying upon the Democratic Party for that. It was the Party of the People, doing grass roots organizing and campaigning and succeeding in getting the People's Agenda through in Congress (while taking their share of graft.)
Contrary to this, the Republican Party has NEVER been an advocate of the People, nor has it EVER represented the interests of the common person. No, not once. Not grass-roots campaigns, no efforts to elevate the poor from poverty to self-sufficiency. No, that was the Democratic party's ideals.
So, now that the Democratic Party leaders became nothing more than greedy morons who no longer knew what the hell they were doing there, other than to collect the same graft that the republicans were -- who is leading the causes?
Bear, what it needs is Leadership. To get back our Rights, it needs someone willing to stand up and to make a sacrifice. Now who's it gonna be - you? Would YOU be willing to lead the American People to Washington in a personal crusade and risk being shot by the CIA or FBI along the way and to become a Martyr? If not, then don't ever look down your nose at the rest of us here.
posted on December 9, 2002 02:51:32 PM newdon't ever look down your nose at the rest of us here
Look down my nose? No. I'm just stating a obvious (to me anyway) fact, when VOTING Americans UNITE to further a cause they believe in, they become a powerfully force to deal with.
posted on December 9, 2002 04:19:12 PM new
Sorry, Bear. I wasn't trying to accuse of that. I meant it pretty much metaphorically anyway.
Yes. When Voting Americans UNITE, they can have political power. That is what is known as a "voting block". But people want a leader -- they need one. Who is going to volunteer for that? It was dangerous enough before Bush and Ashcroft came into total power, now it is flat-out life-threatening to organize against the ruling regime. All Bush has to do is to point at you and you become an "Enemy Combatant" a.k.a. "An Enemy of the State". You could be secretly arrested, held indefinitely, never charged with a crime, never allowed legal council so you'd confess to anything eventually, and you can be made incommunicado from friends, family, and church, PLUS you could be given Military Tribunal, which means that you arrive in the courtroom with NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER!!
Of course, with the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security bill, you'd be very afraid to organize an opponent political party to the Republicans. Once again, you can be monitored, your privacy invaded without your knowledge, and kept under a microscope -- all without your knowledge, consent AND it's perfectly legal for them to do that!
And if that all fails, remember the secret memo that gives the CIA to come and murder you with the full cooperation of the government.
NOW are you willing to 'stand up' and become a target?
posted on December 9, 2002 08:08:14 PM newThe conclusion is "If you don't like the way the government is working, vote for someone who will make a change"
WE DID ELECT SOMEONE WHO WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE, AND IT WAS STOLEN BY PEOPLE WITH A LOT OF MONEY. IF YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF MONEY IN AMERIKKKA, YOU VOICE IS NOT HEARD!
posted on December 9, 2002 08:37:38 PM new
>In one way or another I have been a target all my life.
Great! So, Bear, what are you going to do first? Do you have any idea what you want to change? What's the first thing that you'll do to get popular support for your grassroots campaign?
posted on December 9, 2002 08:47:52 PM newAparently it did work. The only ones still crying about it are the ones that didn't insure ENOUGH dems voted
Just like all who want to forgive & forget clinton & his dasterdly deeds, want to move on & tell all to forget him. GET OVER IT, BUSH IS IN OFFICE AS THE LEGAL PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. If you don't like it, get more dems out to vote in the next election.
So far you have to choos from for the dems is Bore(ing), Leiberman, Sharpton, McCain & whats his name from Mass.
posted on December 9, 2002 08:49:28 PM new
>WE DID ELECT SOMEONE WHO WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Yes, that's true. The majority of Americans DID vote for Gore. This is why so few people turned out for the last election, as so few have any faith left in the system. The election system is so corrupted that your vote no longer counts. I guess that leaves voters to use arms rather than the vote to make govenment change. Me, I'd rather leave the people an honest way for me to not get my butt shot at when they want change, but that's how stupid Republicans are for ya! They'd rather subvert, pervert, and corrupt the voting process to their favor and ignore the inheirit dangers in doing so. It won't be long now and politicans will start to get shot at, or anthaxed at, or whatever. Stupid, stupid people not to give non-violent means for government change.
