However, the Supreme Court's recent "Citizens United" ruling raises the media stakes. Corporations can now wickedly bull-horn billions of attack ad dollars. "I'm the chairman of Atomic Energy and I approve this message." Could Morgan Freeman be an appointed voice-over, hyping the Chinese military candidate? What about disclosure?
Congress and the courts cannot construe laws to encroach our guaranteed right to Freedom of Speech. Political speech, our highest form, is protected. Our founding fathers recognized that power corrupts when they wrote the Bill of Rights. Such was their reasoning behind our First Amendment.
Laws infringing a candidate's access to mass media violate Freedom of Speech! Even the Supreme Coats themselves cannot dislodge a candidate's Writ for Certiorari without their chancing the boundary of the Court's discretion, constitutionally, an "impermissible risk!"
We license the airwaves. Discrimination is verboten. The 312 (a)(7) communications statute is the electronic living room extension of our public right to assemble for speech. According to Section 312 (a)(7), a station's broadcast license may be "revoked for the willful and repeated failure to allow access."
This unknown candidate sought airtime to deliver his presidential campaign speech. The networks ignored his new and novel issues, his fledgling candidacy. FCC stonewalled the candidate's Formal Complaint and slept on his Application for Review two full years. The case finally docketed with the Supremes. At their Friday conference, the Chief intoned, "It's frivolous; nothing here!" Our unknown candidate's petition yet hangs with the Coats by a Kevlar thread, else we are with Rhenquist, done here.
Should the mass media repeatedly refuse to grant a candidate's request for access, and the courts ditch complainant's petition for a hearing, speech is suppressed, our constitution, trashed, and the franchise between government and electorate, dissolved.
Congress violated the First Amendment when they handed jurisdiction over the access statute to FCC, instead of federal district courts. FCC's purview violates our constitution! Congress knew that, too, in 1927, when they legislated the Radio Act. The coinage, "slippery slope," began in the Congressional Record, spoken by a Senator debating the proposed Commission.
FCC absolved cable TV from their 312(a)(7) obligations, gerrymandering the access for incumbents. FCC removed 356 broadcast stations' requirement to air political speech, a cancellation of the public interest, via an earmark, 114 volumes deep, deep in the night of the 2000 appropriations bill, an unheard of illegal dissolution of statutory enforcement.
Whosoever favors constitutional balance read on.
Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, established "equal time" requirements, upon the "use" of mass media by candidates, excluding exempted news events. Upon the granting of equal opportunities, the broadcast time is free.
Without an Act of Congress, the House communications sub-committee can order FCC to air the following update: all political ads are deemed a "use," subject to "equal time." FCC can fax broadcasters they are entitled to reimbursement from advertisers to cover an opponent's equal time because the commission intends on enforcing all requests. This "play you pay" Section 315 enlargement, equal timing everyone's First Amendment media bucks, millions, on behalf of an informed electorate, levels political television's commercial field. Tick tack dough! Every political use is a "use," subject to "equal time."
A $3.00 income tax check off for our First Amendment Speech Fund is the final speech solution: With guaranteed speech, political campaigns won't be dollar dependent. You declare your candidacy, as write-in, or on the ballot, then book your mass media speech on your choice of stations in your district, statewide for Senate, or network, running for president. C-SPAN, the required threshold for winnowing our "fringe" publicity hounds.
The reason for speech regulation was limited channels. Today's bandwidth is infinite.
The money that covers your live speech, replacing the broadcast income generated from the slot, comes from our First Amendment Speech Fund. Upon your declaration of candidacy you have access to millions of dollars for televised speech! Live speeches by candidates qualify, not films, and candidates must take a real time oath on a Holy Book, the speech they are about to give is of their own making. The weak tag line, "I approve this message" will become at the outset, "I swear these are my own words."
Establishing the First Amendment Speech Fund protects our government from supreme corporate influence. People believing in themselves can state their case for election, and by their words and deeds, show their worthiness. Democracy is messy. We cannot nullify the Supremes, but our founders would agree, we are entitled to underwrite our freedom of political speech, live and televised.
1 | 2