There is something eerie about S 752 HR 1826 FENA

Thursday, July 30th at 12:28PM EST

8 Comments

This is a short comment. The left is in blissful excitement about this bill, supported by George Soros, SEIU, Acorn, Moveon and all the usual suspects. It looks like it will pass. Here is the bill.

A news release is here: http://snipr.com/ob4dx [news_prnewswire_com]

I’ve skimmed this bill, and it gives me an eerie feeling. Sounds good, but..I’m missing something. Anyone out there read it?

Is this another kiss me?

8 Comments Leave a comment

Odd Govtrac is down Here is the link for a leftist site for the Fair Elections Now Act

Kate_Shanahan (Diary) Thursday, July 30th at 12:38PM EST (link)

http://snipr.com/fenacthr1826

Kate

“It is the American vice, the democratic disease which expresses its tyranny by reducing everything unique to the level of the herd.” Henry Miller

I'm devoid of expertise in this area,

Uma Richie (Diary) Thursday, July 30th at 7:43PM EST (link)

but I’ll take a stab at it. My guess is that ACORN will receive matching taxpayer funds for its contributions to HoR candidates. While they are out collecting voter registrations, the ACORNistas will also collect “signed oaths” for small dollar contributions. ACORN will purchase $100 debit cards, the total value of which will be assigned to the “signed oaths.” This bill would allow these supposed individual contributions to receive matching federal funds.

Or maybe I should get myself a tinfoil hat.

Have you read the bill

Kate_Shanahan (Diary) Thursday, July 30th at 11:11PM EST (link)

or are you just naturally snarky?

Kate

“It is the American vice, the democratic disease which expresses its tyranny by reducing everything unique to the level of the herd.” Henry Miller

Kate, this is a late reply.

Uma Richie (Diary) Tuesday, August 4th at 9:07PM EST (link)

I did read the bill via your link and tried to think about its potential for abuse as cynically as I could.

this part of the summary bothers me.... Please read and respond if you know.

LISA BULLOCK-HOCK (Diary) Thursday, July 30th at 11:21PM EST (link)

Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to: (1) prohibit the preemption of the use of a broadcasting station by a legally qualified House candidate who has purchased and paid for such use; (2) revise Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authority to revoke licenses for broadcasting stations who fail to provide access to House candidates; and (3) revise the formula for determining reduced broadcast rates for participating candidates in certain circumstances.
Directs the FCC to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to establish a standardized form to be used by broadcasting stations to record and report the purchase of advertising time by or on behalf of a candidate for nomination for election, or for election, to federal elective office.

What does this mean? Revoke licenses for broadcasting — sounds something like the Fairness Doctrine. Am I wrong on this????????? Somebody please tell me.

Cut, Cap, and Balance–Imagine that, living within your means. What a concept

I will try to help...

jcincy Friday, July 31st at 12:11AM EST (link)

I have assisted with a Congressman’s FEC computer filings over the past few elections cycles. This does not make me an expert, but I do have a little familiarity with the subject.

Yes, a broadcaster could lose their license to broadcast if they do not allow access to a campaign. This is standard FCC / FEC rules to prevent one candidate [generally, a Dem or Rep] from getting paid access to the airwaves.

The FCC form appears to be the layer of bureaucracy the stations will have to go through to redeem their government vouchers.

Other than the funding, I don’t see the rules be much different than the current rules for the FCC/FEC in regards to campaigns.

I don’t like the bill for two main reasons:
1) The government should not be funding campaigns.
2) This bill, like many others primarily only covers the Dems and the Reps. Independents and ‘minority parties’ can take hike.

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” — John Jay

thanks

LISA BULLOCK-HOCK (Diary) Friday, July 31st at 12:46AM EST (link)

that helps a bit. I don’t like this at all. Who decides who gets what and how much?

Cut, Cap, and Balance–Imagine that, living within your means. What a concept

Bipartisans... 70+ co-sponsors... MISLEADING!!!

jcincy Friday, July 31st at 12:16AM EST (link)

Look at the list of co-sponsors… it’s a who’s who’s of Democrats. I may have seen one R on that list.

I guess bipartisan means socialist democrats and not-so-socialist democrats.