Campaign trail hits Amazon

TalkBack 1 of 1:

Thread View
Flat View

Glaring Exception to Citizenship Requirement: Only U.S. citizens and permanent residents may contribute.

Below I point out a glaring exception to the above statement from your article:

"Regarding the issue of foreign ownership of media, I am currently researching this issue.
I appreciate your concerns that while the FEC regulates contributions and expenditures of American citizens, newspapers owned

by foreign individuals or corporations are not subject to such regulation. The problem is in limiting the freedom of speech

of these newspapers. Any type of regulation of editorial comment would be unconstitutional." From Ann Northup's letter to

her constituent, Richard Lewis, dated June 11, 1997

"Regarding print media, I understand your concern about foreign ownership. Of the seven largest newspaper companies, two --

Thomson Newspapers (circulation 1.33 million, 65 dailies) and Hollinger International (circualtion 1.28 million, 105 dailies)

-- are Canadian. However, several questions arise as to how to implement any type of restriction. While broadcasters are

regulated by the FCC, newspapers do not have any type of regulating agency. Further, requiring any type of regulation of the

print media would draw serious constitutional problems.

However, I agree with you that media plays an incredibly important and powerful role in our society. As we discussed on the

radio the other night, campaign finance reform proposals that limit the ability of candidates to get their message out merely

empower the control of the editorial boards. I agree with you that foreign ownership of newspapers could be very dangerous.

One wonders what the effect would be if China bought most of the major newspapers in this country." From Ann Northup's

letter to her constituent, Richard Lewis, dated September 4, 1997 - http://amendment10.tripod.com/Ann_4.jpg

"Mr. Richard Lewis, a constituent from Kentucky's Third District, has grave concerns about foreign ownership of media.
He raises the issue that while the media has brought campaign finance reform to the forefront of public awareness, such

proposals limit the ability of law-abiding citizens to get out a message. Meanwhile, two of the seven largest newspaper

companies in the United States are owned by foreign investors. The ability of these foreign owners to influence elections

through editorial pages will be strengthened by increased limits on campaign finance." Excerpt from Congresswoman Northup's

September 4, 1997 letter to the Chairman William Thomas (Committee on House Oversight), on behalf of her constituent,

Richard Lewis

The Bill of Rights was written to guarantee the rights of flesh and blood American citizens and not corporations.

Corporations were granted the same rights as people, in 1866, by an error a Supreme Court clerk inserted in the header note

of a case.

"the Supreme Court ruled no such thing in 1886. The 'corporations are persons' ruling was a fiction created by the court's

reporter. He simply wrote the words into the headnote of the decision. The words contradict what the court actually said.

There is, in fact, in the US National Archives a note by the Supreme Court Chief Justice of the time explicitly informing the

reporter that the court had not ruled on corporate personhood in the Santa Clara case." -- Thom Hartmann, Dinosaur War, The

Ecologist, December/January 2002 Issue

"It is necessary to go back to some fundamentals in our history to understand how the modern corporation, initially a

creature of the state, has managed to turn things around so that today, the state is a creature of the corporation." -Molly

Rush, "Rethinking the Corporation, Rethinking Democracy" workshop participant

"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy; the

growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against

democracy." -Alex Carey, Australian social scientist who pioneered the investigation of corporate propaganda (see Taking the

Risk Out Of Democracy, Univ of New South Wales, 1995)

A newspaper must at all times antagonize the selfish interests of that very class which furnishes the larger part of a

newspaper's income... The press in this country is dominated by the wealthy few...that it cannot be depended upon to give the

great mass of the people that correct information concerning political, economical and social subjects which it is necessary

that the mass of people Shall have in order that they vote...in the best way to protect themselves from the brutal force and

chicanery of the ruling and employing classes. (E.W. Scripps).

The need for Federal Campaign reforms hinge on the potential of big contributions to buy influence in public matters. As a

consequence, candidates are limited in how much they can accept from any given donor and required to make public reports, at

regular intervals, listing the names, occupations, addresses of donors and their amounts. Furthermore, the candidate must

provide public reports stating how the funds are spent.

Citizens groups, individual citizens and political parties are also restricted in how much they can spend and required to

report at regular intervals.

But broadcasters and (even foreign owned) newspapers are not regulated and are free to spend any amount promoting the

candidates and issues they choose, supported by the advertising dollars of the same big contributors.

Until the "corporate press" exemption is addressed, the ombudsman at the newspaper office acts as the gatekeeper of free

political speech. If the newspaper prints your letter to the editor about an issue or candidate, your advocacy may reach a

circulation of hundreds of thousands and you enjoy the newspapers exemption from campaign finance spending limits and

reporting requirements.

If the newspaper rejects your article and you decide to deliver your message door to door via handbills, you need to visit

the Federal Election Commission and familiarize yourself with terms like: political action committee (PAC), independent Vs

in-Kind donations, issue Vs express advocacy, spending limits, reporting intervals and coordination with a candidates

campaign. If that isn't daunting enough to discourage you from participating, remember failure to comply with Campaign

Finance Laws is punishable as a felony.

We the People have been hoodwinked. Campaign Reforms are incumbent protection acts. Everytime new campaign regulations are

passed voter participation declines, diversity is squelched and the number of successful challengers decline. Polls have

shown campaign reform has never been a big issue with voters. So what drove the latest push for the Bipartisan Campaign

Reform Act ... why your federal politicians of course. The foxes wanted to protect you from their weak character and

proclivity to sell out the public interest to the highest bidder?; Posted by: Repeal Posted on: 01/24/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use