SwiftVets.com

integritycounts · Rear Admiral Joined: 11 Aug 2004 Posts: 667

If Bush were to come out against the Swift-Vets on a specific ad, that would mean that on any future ads done by the Swift-Vets, IF he did not again "disapprove" of the Ad, it would be effectively approving that second Ad.

Bush can not give approval or lack of approval to anything related to 527 groups.

Because John Kerry came out against a specific MoveonPAC.org Advertisement, that means that for all others, he approves of them. In this specific case because of Kerry directions as evidence by his comments on their Advertisement, the cable networks reported that MoveonPAC.org changed their Ads to be shown.

Bottom-line, Presidential Candidates CANNOT comment on Swift-vets and any other 527 groups. And that Kerry's Ad specific disapprovals sends a clear message to MoveonPAC.org of what Kerry wants to see and what he does not. Which if not a full legal violation, is a violation of the spirit of McCain's law.

swiftjustice · Former Member Joined: 21 Aug 2004 Posts: 4

I've heard this explanation a few times, but it just doesn't go through. If you look at the wording of the campaign reform law, what it says is that candidates must *approve* a message in order to receive the special consideration that political ads receive--pricing, protection from censorship, etc. There is nothing about *disapproval*, and it is not possible to tacitly approve an ad--the law is very specific about the ways in which approval can be accomplished, and they are all explicit forms of approval.

Bush could denounce the ad. But the real question is--do folks really think he should? Seems like these explanations imply that Bush should if he could...

Thanks for listening.

integritycounts · Rear Admiral Joined: 11 Aug 2004 Posts: 667

I have to disagree

If a campaign disapproves of each Ad they disagree with, there becomes an expectation that Ads they "don't disagree with", are acceptable.

By selectively disapproving you are giving more credence to the 527 and to all the other messages they put out.

Bottomline....527 are independent organizations which campaigns can not control...if they are able to control their output....is a violation of the law

thegunnerswife · Seaman Apprentice Joined: 23 Aug 2004 Posts: 96

Forgive me for being naive or missing a previous post on this but help me out.....

Why should President Bush put a stop to these adds and not put a stop to that hideous movie and other crap that Michael Moore is sharing with the world??????
_________________
IYAOYAS!

Doc Farmer · Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:25 pm Post subject:

neverforget · Vice Admiral Joined: 18 Jul 2004 Posts: 875

If I understand the events of today correctly, the letter from President Bush effectively kicked the ball back into Kerry's court, saying it is his problem.

fortdixlover · Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:29 pm Post subject:

thegunnerswife · Seaman Apprentice Joined: 23 Aug 2004 Posts: 96

That is my feeling!
_________________
IYAOYAS!

Doc Farmer · Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:30 pm Post subject:

swiftjustice · Former Member Joined: 21 Aug 2004 Posts: 4

[quote="integritycounts"]I have to disagree

If a campaign disapproves of each Ad they disagree with, there becomes an expectation that Ads they "don't disagree with", are acceptable.

By selectively disapproving you are giving more credence to the 527 and to all the other messages they put out.

Bottomline....527 are independent organizations which campaigns can not control...if they are able to control their output....is a violation of the law[/quote]

i agree, there is an implicit expectation, just not that it is a legal issue. saying it's a good or bad ad isn't legally (under the reform law terms) approving or disapproving, or controlling content and distribution, so there's no legal obstruction. but, yes, definitely, a message is sent.

DEL · Seaman Recruit Joined: 08 May 2004 Posts: 49

Well the way I seez it is ; The president (Executive branch) has no authority to silence a citizen. That power rests with the Judicial branch of the government.

It would be an abuse of power and a violation of the separation of authority.

Maybe any elected official using his good office in an attempt to silence an ordinary citizen would be playing a whole new and very dangerous game.