Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Presidential nominee, sent out a press release on Monday, including:
"The attempt to gag Michael Moore demonstrates that McCain-Feingold was just an excuse to outlaw political criticism."
Under an advisory opinion from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Moore may be prohibited from advertising his controversial new documentary, which is sharply critical of President Bush, after July 30. Under McCain-Feingold, corporate-paid radio or TV ads that identify a federal candidate are illegal to broadcast within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.
Since Moore has publicly stated that his goal is to help defeat Bush, Democrats and Republicans are waging partisan warfare over "Fahrenheit 9/11."
But Badnarik -- who teaches classes on the Constitution -- says a much larger issue is at stake: Every American's freedom of speech.
"The truth is that Democrats and Republicans committed a bipartisan crime against the First Amendment when they passed the McCain-Feingold law," according to Badnarik.
"This law allows politicians to determine what their critics can say, when they can say it and how much they can spend in the process -- which is exactly what's not supposed to happen in a free country."
Noting that the First Amendment clearly states that 'Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom speech,' Badnarik asked: "What part of the words 'no law' doesn't the government understand? The First Amendment doesn't contain exceptions for advertisements that might offend the president or cost him his job -- and it certainly doesn't authorize federal movie police.
"Every American should stand up for Michael Moore's right to advertise 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' regardless of how they feel about George Bush."
The nice thing about this is that leftists, presumably including Moore's supporters, were advocates of McCain-Feingold. So while I agree with Badnarik it's nice to see Moore's side squirm.
Posted by Walter at June 30, 2004 09:26 PMYou know how happy I am to see him squirm, too, but that was one nasty bit of legislation. It never should have made muster--and this really is the logical result of it.
Of course, it also makes me squirm a bit that people from my party are pushing this attempt at what really does amount to censorship--the first time Moore would have a reasonable claim on that label.
Posted by: zombyboy at July 1, 2004 01:45 PMMichael Moore sure does like cannolis.
Posted by: Jeff G at July 4, 2004 01:00 AM