FEC Phone Numbers

So what are we gonna do about it if the FEC won't help? We are going to have to band together and email every stinking major media outlet about it.

Is anyone going to do this?

He is correct and this is why our biggest concern at this moment should be nationwide education on what corporate personhood is and what has been the impact on our nation and it's citizens from this erroneous designator.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights were NEVER INTENDED to protect corporations, which is evident that corporations are not noted in the Constitution as being people or individuals; in fact this country was founded by individuals who left foreign shores for America to avoid taxation without representation, government mandated religion and most important of all, the oppression of corporate control over government and therefore the people.

Corporations used the slavery amendment as an argument in a court case that they should be considered persons just like slaves now were since slaves were formerly known as "artificial persons" - just like corporations - were.

When slaves were given consideration as real persons, corporations felt they should ALSO be considered real persons and for legal purposes, this was declared in 1886. Thereafter they were seen in the eyes of the law as completely equal to people, a complete negation of the purpose and intent of the Constitution.

This meant they were able to lobby politicians and be fully protected by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, just like a real, live person.

This is what started the beginning of the end of freedom and importance in this country for the real, live breathing individual; instead corporate money and influence have been dictating legislation, governmental regulation and the suppression of the individual for over 100 years.

END CORPORATE PERSONHOOD. NOW.

The law is that they can say whatever they want (short of obscenity or indecency) - even if it's false, misleading, or slanted. The reasoning behind this is that the First Amendment guarantees stations and networks the right of free speech, which means that they can program pretty much whatever they want. Further, the Communications Act, which established the FCC back in 1934, specifically prohibits us from censoring the content of broadcasts. Consequently, we cannot tell stations what to air or what not to air. So if a station wants to exclude a candidate from its coverage, it's entitled to do so. Your complaint should be aimed at the individual networks.

Sincerely,
Mark Berlin
Policy Division (political office)
Media Bureau

I'm calling to complain what a CRIMINAL ACT the Media has perpatrated against Dr. Paul. This is NO longer a country I"m proud of, and I will let them all know that! I wouldn't be so dang sore about this if Dr. Paul had been treated WELL from the beginning, but he wasn't.

In fact, he was THE ONLY CANDIDATE who was time & again treated with such contempt, beaten & whipped, publicly humilated! The rest of the so-called 2nd tier candidates were, at least, treated better. They may have been ignored much of the time, but at least they weren't treated with contempt by the GOP.

Will the outcome of this election again be controlled like so many in the past? Will it?
To stop the eastern establishment from controlling the end result of this election we need to be active in every way possible to give Ron Paul publicity.
Stop waiting for the media to give Ron Paul the public exposure.
We are his supporters so it is our job.
For more info go to www.youtube.com
then in search type *** moneymasters their are a series of videos watch them and your questions will be answered.
Utah is voting like knee jerk sheep. In Utah 90% of the vote was for Romney.

My new term for knee jerk voters is ***establishment sheep.*** Why?

Look at the primary election results in Utah you will see that the mormon population in Utah voted for Romney without advertising, without yard signs, without billboards, without rally's, and without campaigning in Utah.

They voted for him in without knowing his stand on the issues.
They voted for Romney for three reasons
1. He is a mormon
2. He is a republician.
3. They know his name.
Mormons can be counted to salivate like a trained dog to support people with those 3 qualifications..

with these bueracrats. These guys don't care, nor or they held accountable to anyone, or anything. Just another gift from our bloated government. The foxes are watching the hen house, and they don't need our help. There is only one thing left for Dr. Paul to do, and that is as Pastor Chuck Baldwin suggests, assume the leadership of the Constitution Party and continue to the General Election without the blasted GOP. They're going down, no matter what anyway.

Just lit a guy up this morning about this issue. Called and he and I actually had a great conversation. He mostly agreed with my statements.

He suggested that the complaints be done in writing to :

Office of General Council
999 G St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20463

to deal with this immoral not only non-coverage of Dr. Paul, but LIES about him not running by implying there are only two in the race: with CNN, Fox, MSNBS etc. Send them a short email and threaten with periodic DDOS attack on their server/website if they continue with this. It makes one sick! There are enough of you specialist guys that can do it, and we can also do it from other countries (overseas), where I am (in Asia). There are strong Ron Paul supporters all over the world.

I was under the impression that the FEC is not seated because the Democrtas and Republicans can not agree on appointments.

Go to Google NewsFEC Recommendation Could End Up in Court
By JIM KUHNHENN – Jan 22, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal regulators recommended Tuesday that a newly formed political group cannot accept unlimited contributions from donors if it wants to advocate for or against candidates for federal office.

The draft opinion opens the way for SpeechNow.org to challenge a key provision of campaign finance law in federal court.

SpeechNow.org was formed last year by critics of government restrictions on political advocacy. Tuesday's recommendation by lawyers for the Federal Election Commission would have to be approved or rejected by the six-member commission.

But the FEC has only two active members because the Senate has not acted on four pending nominations. Democrats have refused to confirm Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official, and Republicans want all four nominees voted on as a package.

The two remaining commissioners planned to meet Thursday to discuss the staff recommendation, but without a quorum they will be unable to vote on it.

SpeechNow.org organized last year as a nonprofit organization, typically called a 527 for the section of the Internal Revenue Code that authorizes such groups. The groups can raise unlimited amounts of money and can conduct lobbying activities, including airing ads promoting issues. But SpeechNow.org organizers, in a test of FEC regulations, wanted to support candidates in 2008 "who favor returning America to the state of political freedom and advocate the defeat of candidates who favor speech restrictions in the name of campaign finance reform."

FEC lawyers said the group could do that only if it registered as a political committee, which would limit its contributions to $5,000 from individuals.

SpeechNow.org president David Keating said any restrictions on the ability of individuals to associate by forcing them to abide by FEC regulations would violate free speech guarantees in the Constitution.

"We'll probably have to ask the courts to let us do it," he said.

In the past two years, the FEC found that several prominent 527 organizations, both pro-Democrat and pro-Republican, violated the law by advocating for or against candidates. Several of the groups, under agreements where they did not acknowledge wrongdoing, paid fines totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Paul S. Ryan, of the Campaign Legal Center, said the draft opinion was in keeping with those past findings. The legal center supports the FEC staff proposal.

"It's really the only outcome that the commission's general counsel's office could have put forth," Ryan said.

Already this election cycle, several groups have been accepting contributions in excess of federal limits to spend money in support of candidates but have not specifically advocated for their election.

A successful court challenge by SpeechNow.org would permit groups to raise money without limits and to advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate. SpeechNow.org, however, does disclose the identities of its donors and its expenditures.

Find out how people really reacted when mcCain joined the race!!!

http://www.youtube.com/wa...

Email bombing is illegal. It crashes servers, and that is a denial of service attack.

-0-

LawfulGov.Org
Your Nexus to the Freedom Movement