My name is Richard Lewis

I reside at 2222 Dorothy Avenue

Louisville, Kentucky 40205

502-454-3707

RE: My Comments on Kentucky Senate Bill 62

FREE SPEECH and FREE PRESS ARE DEFINED AS "INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS" BY THE KENTUCKY BILL OF RIGHTS

No Kentucky Statute "differentiates" between the speech or press "Rights" of Kentucky citizens "Living Persons" and "the media" "legal persons". This fact was acknowledged by the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance and the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission in 1999.

Mr. Ed Parker, Mr. Norman Davis, Mr. John Riley and I met with Mrs. Rosemary Center at the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance and with members of the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission with support of members of the Kentucky Legislature in order to establish this fact!

State Representative Perry Clark was a member of the House committee which heard testimony concerning this bill. Employees of the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance were present in support of HB750.  Mr. Ed Parker, Mr. Norman Davis, Mr. John Riley and I were present and testified against HB750.

State Representative Perry Clark's Statement regarding HB 750 in the house committee was: 

"I had a couple of questions I thought were very important to this situation, but I actually know the answer we can not site any K.R.S. we can not site any statute that will differentiate between a corporate or an individual freedom of the press and I think the 1992 campaign finance reform act and this House bill 750 they bind the liberty of the individual while we allow an exemption for the corporate press and we allow them to be the unrestrained gate keepers of public opinion. I further believe this bill is constitutionally, ethically and morale wrong. Until we address why the newspaper and broadcast companies are exempt from Kentucky election laws that set spending limits and reporting requirements of the political speech of citizens and grassroots organizations we will not have true campaign finance reform! In support and defense of the Kentucky Constitution which we swore to uphold and defend I vote no."

HB 750 was defeated.

In 1999 complaints were filed with the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance alleging that the Courier Journal and the Lexington Herald Leader were not exempt from Kentucky Election Laws! An investigation ensued and was concluded at a formal hearing conducted at the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance at their headquarters in Frankfort in 2000.  The hearing occurred after HB 750 had been defeated and the legislative session had ended. The registry agreed with the Courier Journals legal council, MS. Kimberly Greene, who argued that “It does not matter that the Kentucky law at issue here doesn't contain the exemption within the body of the law.”

It is obvious now that continuing efforts to create a so called “media exemption” are not for the purpose of protecting the rights of newspaper and broadcast businesses operating in Kentucky rather a press exemption is needed by the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance to provide a legal basis for applying restrictions to the speech and press rights of Kentucky's people!

In 2008 another attempt was made to create a press exemption, Senate Bill 8 was defeated.

When the Kentucky Constitution and the United States Constitution were written, enumerated "Rights" existed only for "living beings"!

KENTUCKY BILL OF RIGHTS:

Sec. 1. Rights of life, liberty, worship, pursuit of safety and happiness, free speech, acquiring and protecting property, peaceable assembly, redress of grievances, bearing arms. All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:

Fourth: The right of freely communicating their thoughts and opinions.

Sec. 8. Freedom of speech and of the press. Printing presses shall be free to every person who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the General Assembly or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. Every person may freely and fully speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

Sec. 26. General powers subordinate to Bill of Rights; laws contrary thereto are void. To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void.

The Kentucky Bill of Rights, in very clear and plain language guarantees every "Living Kentucky Citizen" an equal "Right to Speak" and to "Publish" their political opinions. Our Bill of Rights, guarantees the same "Rights" to every "living citizen" without regard to their occupation, it places no caveats on how individuals or groups of individuals raise or pool their money to purchase paper and ink or pay for distribution of their printed material.

The Kentucky Bill of Rights, guarantees no preference or "special rights" for the institutional or for profit use of a "printing press".

Corporations were not recognized as "legal persons" in the United States and did not enjoy "enumerated rights" until 1886.

EXCERPT INCLUDED BELOW IS FROM SENATE BILL 62 :

(b) "Contribution" shall not include:

1. Services provided without compensation by individuals volunteering a portion or all of their time on behalf of a candidate, a slate of candidates, committee, or contributing organization;

2. A loan of money by any financial institution doing business in Kentucky made in accordance

with applicable banking laws and regulations and in the ordinary course of business;

3. An independent expenditure by any individual or permanent committee;

4. News stories, commentary, or editorials by the media;

Is Senate Bill 62 attempting to comply with the Constitutionally recognized and guaranteed freedoms of speech and press by exempting "the media"?

Is it the intent of Senate Bill 62 to give "legal persons" businesses, described above as "the media", "Rights" that are superior to Rights" of "Living persons" or is it the intent of this legislation to create superior "Rights" for the "individuals" employed by "the media", editors, reporters and talking heads?

Is it the intent of Kentucky lawmakers to create a STATE APPROVED PRESS a form of PRAVDA? By definition those newspapers and broadcasters that are exempted from Kentucky State Election Laws become the STATE APPROVED PRESS!

Is it the intent of Kentucky lawmakers to replace our system of government based on "EQUAL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS" with a system of government based on "limited collective rights"?

Is it the intent of Kentucky lawmakers to create a Foreign Media Exemption: If senate Bill 62 passes and the "media exemption is not removed or amended. A foreign citizen who purchases or creates a new Kentucky newspaper will be exempt from state election laws that restrict your constituents enumerated speech and press rights! Under the "historical definitions" of free speech and "free press" your constituents would have the same "Rights" as "foreign owned media"!

THE RULE OF LAW:

The "Media Exemption" highlighted in yellow above is included in Senate Bill 62 .... This "Media Exemption" would create "superior rights" for legal persons! The political influence of "legal persons" described as "the media" would be exempt from speech and press restrictions and regulations that restrict the "RIGHTS" of the people of Kentucky !

The Kentucky Bill of Rights defines and enumerates the "Inalienable Rights" of "Living Persons" it does not define or enumerate rights for any business!

Can the "Rights" of "legal persons" be lawfully be elevated above the "RIGHTS" of "Living Persons" by any lawful means?

Can the "Rights" of newspaper and broadcast businesses "legal persons" described as "The Media" be elevated above the "RIGHTS" of "Living Persons" by an amendment to the Kentucky Constitution?

If section 26: of the Kentucky Bill of Rights permitted our "RIGHTS" to be amended and a "mediaexemption" was placed on the ballot as a "constitutional amendment" the "proposed amendment" would reveal an obvious conflict of interest. The "media" in Kentucky is treated as if it were already exempt from Kentucky election laws! Should "the media" be allowed to support the "media exemption" through favorable news coverage and editorials?

Bad Faith: Despite repeated request no Kentucky newspaper or broadcast station including Kentucky Educational Television has reported that Senate Bill 62 will exempt newspaper and broadcasters from election laws that regulate the speech and press rights of their readers and viewers.

Do newspaper editors, reporters and broadcast talking heads believe they should be entitled to greater freedom to engage in political speech than their readers, listeners and viewers?

Has the institutional media "spiked" this news story in order to avoid public debate about their proposed exemption? * Is this an example of how a "media exemption" would benefit your constituents?

The Gannett newspaper chain is the largest in the United States. But Gannett also owns a foreign subsidiary. Newsquest, a Gannett company, is the UK's second largest publisher of regional and local newspapers with more than 300 newspapers, including 15 dailies, a weekly circulation of 10.6 million copies and 9,000 employees! [source Gannett's web-site] Rupert Murdoch owns the New York Post and the Fox network but he also owns newspaper and broadcast companies around the world. General Electric owns the NBC network. It has also invested in the television broadcasting business in three foreign countries. [ page 335 Who Will Tell The People paperback by Willam Greider ]

How would a serious "public debate" about the need for "legislation limiting" foreign owned medias influence on Kentucky and U.S. laws and elections impact these international media corporations?

Are "Equal Individual Rights" being sacrificed to the financial interest of "multinational media corporations"?

Ben H. Bagdikian a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and the Dean Emeritus of U.S.C. Berkley's School of Journalism has written several books describing the modern media as a " Media Monopoly"!

The excerpts below are from page 25 The Media Monopoly by Ben H. Bagdikian Fifth Edition paperback.

Under law, the director of a company is obliged to act in the interests of his or her own company. It has always been an unanswered dilemma when an officer of Corporation A, who also sits as a director on the board of Corporation B, has to choose between acting in the best interests of Corporation A or of Corporation B.

Interlocked boards of directors have enormously complicated potential conflicts of interest in the major national and multinational corporations that now control most of the country's media.

A 1979 study by Peter Dreier and Steven Weinberg found interlocked directorates in major newspaper chains. Gannett shared directors with Merrill Lynch stock brokers), Standard Oil of Ohio, 20th-Century Fox, Kerr-McGee (oil, gas, nuclear power, aerospace), McDonnell Douglas Aircraft, McGraw-Hill, Eastern Airlines, Phillips Petroleum, Kellogg Company, and New York Telephone Company.

The most influential paper in America, the New York Times, interlocked with Merck, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Bristol Myers, Charter Oil, Johns Manville, American Express, Bethlehem Steel, IBM, Scott Paper, Sun Oil, and First Boston Corporation.

Louis Brandeis, before joining the Supreme Court, called this linkage "the endless chain." He wrote: "This practice of interlocking directorates is the root of many evils. It offends laws human and divine. . . . It tends to disloyalty and violation of the fundamental law that no man can serve two masters.... It is undemocratic, for it rejects the platform: 'A fair field and no favors."'

It is normal for all large businesses to make serious efforts to influence the news, to avoid embarrassing publicity, and to maximize sympathetic public opinion and government policies. Now they own most of the news media that they wish to influence.

* "When the first edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 1983, critics called Ben Bagdikian's warnings about the chilling effects of corporate ownership and mass advertising on the nation's news "alarmist". Since then, the number of corporations controlling most of America's daily newspapers, magazines, radio, television, books and movies has dropped from fifty to ten." [ from the fifth edition of The Media Monopoly rear book cover] * The sixth edition says the number of corporations controlling most of America's daily newspapers, magazines, radio, television, books and movies has dropped to six.

Select portions of a Kentucky Registry of Election Finance hearing transcript:

Concerning four cases, Michael Douglas Lewis versus Courier Journal, case 1999-153; Michael Douglas versus Patton-Henry and Lexington Herald, case No. 1999-157; Mr. Riley versus Patton- Henry, C.J. and the Lexington Herald, that would be 1999-154; and then Mr. Richard Lewis versus the Courier Journal, Paul Patton and Patton-Henry for Kentucky, that will be case No. 1999-158.

MS. GREENE SWORN

CHAIRMAN:

MR. COX:

All right. And, state your name.

Greene some questions--

CHAIRMAN:

That would be fine.

Mr. Chairman, would you mind if I ask Ms.

MR. COX:

--as we get going.

Would you just tell us your name, please? MS. GREENE:

My name is Kimberly Greene.

MR. COX:

And, who do you represent?

MS. GREENE:

I represent the Courier Journal.

MR. COX:

Do you practice law in Louisville?

MS. GREENE:

Yes, I do.

MR. COX:

How long have you concentrated your practice in the area of the 1st Amendment?

MS. GREENE:

For twenty years.

MR. COX:

For twenty years. Do you believe that this body or the Legislature could constitutionally regulate either the timing or the content of editorials of the Courier Journal?

MS. GREENE:

No, sir. I do not. As set forth in the response that the Courier Journal filed in this matter. The 1st Amendment has been construed over and over again by the Supreme Court of the United States to say that, in fact, that cannot be done. And, that what these complainants are requesting of the Registry today is as offensive as anything could be to the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. And, I don't want to take a lot of the Registry's time. I just want to emphasize that time and again, the United States Supreme Court has said that this particular type of speech as published by the news media is the most highly protected under the 1st Amendment of any kind of speech. Speech concerning elections and candidates. It does not matter that the Kentucky law at issue here doesn't contain the exemption within the body of the law. The 1st Amendment and the Supreme Court pronounce the supreme law of the land and that has been made clear that applying such laws to newspaper publications of this nature is inimical to the 1st Amendment. It does not matter that the particular newspapers at issue in these complaints aren't owned by corporations, the 1st Amendment applies to newspapers no matter what their ownership. And, there are many newspapers in this state which are owned by individuals or families which enjoy the exact same 1st Amendment right that the Courier Journal is asserting and exercising here.

The Courier Journal publishes opposing views to its editorial endorsements. In fact, invites opposing views to be published. And, bottom line, what the Courier Journal does in publishing its editorial views and election concerns is not any kind of attempt to put itself above the people or to seek the status of royalty or nobility, quite the contrary. As the Supreme Court has recognized though, the news media do play an important role in disseminating information and opinion of all kind to the citizenry without the newspapers and the news media's role in our election process. Our election process couldn't be and wouldn't be what it is. So, we would respectfully ask the Registry to accept the General Counsel's recommendation and to dismiss these complaints. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN:

Any questions for Ms. Greene?

MR. SANDERS:

I do.

CHAIRMAN:

Mr. Sanders.

MR. SANDERS:

I have one--I'm taking advantage of your many years of experience as a 1st Amendment lawyer. Suppose that Ace Incorporated, a company that whose primary purpose was to manufacture witchets, (sic) decided in some coming election season that they wanted to use their computers and their copy machines to publish a newspaper to advocate the election of Jack Smith for Governor, can they do that? And, if not, what's the difference between the corporation that runs that newspaper and the corporation that runs the Courier Journal, in terms of their 1st Amendment rights?

MS. GREENE:

I think that is a very interesting question, Mr. Sanders. And, as you noted previously, it is not before the Registry in these complaints. However, certainly the Witchet (sic) Manufacturing

Company could establish a newspaper under the laws in the Constitution of this land. Would it enjoy the same 1st Amendment protections afforded to established professional newspapers? I believe that it would. And, I believe that question probably would end up before this Registry at some point. But, today, what we're talking about is the news media, the established news media, that have been recognized time and again to enjoy those 1st Amendment protections for these types of publications.

MR. SANDERS:

May I assume that it makes no difference whether the publication was in the form of a newspaper, like, envision pulling one out of a Courier Journal rack or whether it's a hand--simple one page handbill or flyer that they're both afforded the same protections under the 1st Amendment?

MS. GREENE:

I would think they are, sir. I mean, newspapers have taken a number of different forms during the existence of our country and are going to continue to take different forms as we see in electronic transmission of news and who knows what's next.

MR. COX:

Ms. Greene, we talked a little bit or we heard a little bit about earlier today about the FEC laws, which specifically exempt newspapers and so forth. Has that exemption been litigated and held to be constitutional?

MS. GREENE:

That exemption has been litigated in the case of Austin versus Michigan Chamber of Commerce as cited in our response to the complaint. And, the exemption was found to be constitutional on the very same basis that we're promoting today, that it would be unconstitutional not to exempt this sort of speech by the news media. So, that the fact that no explicit exemption exists in Kentucky law is irrelevant to this Registry's consideration today of these complaints, because the same 1st amendment juris prudence applies to require that these complaints be dismissed as it applies to the upholding the exemption of news media, the exact--it is exactly the same rationale.

MR. SANDERS:

Is it a fair statement of constitutional law that the 1st Amendment rights of the largest publishing corporation are no greater than the 1st Amendment rights of the most ordinary citizen, would you agree with that?

MS. GREENE:

The rights--I would agree that every citizen in our country has 1st Amendment rights and has protection under the 1st Amendment. There is a body of law developed by the Supreme Court in construing the 1st Amendment that recognizes that in some instances the news media, as an institution are in a position to represent the individual citizens of our country in the exercise of their 1st Amendment rights. So, that for example, while all citizens, individual, corporate, the news media, whatever, have a 1st Amendment right of access to public hearings such as this or court proceedings, not all individual citizens are able to drop their daily business and attend to see what public agencies and courts are doing first hand. So, the 1st Amendment and the Supreme Court have recognized that the press plays a very important role in--as a surrogate for individual citizens in bringing information to them that they couldn't individually gather. So, to that extent there is--

MR. SANDERS:

That's all very interesting. But, the question--it doesn't directly address the question, which is very simple, I think. And, that is, are the 1st Amendment rights of the largest publishing corporation any greater or any less than the 1st Amendment rights of the most ordinary citizen or are they, as I suspect, the same?

I think they are the same. MR. SANDERS:

Okay. Thank you. questions

.

CHAIRMAN:

Couple of points. Ms. White, did you have anything that you wanted to ask Ms. Greene?

MS. WHITE:

No.

CHAIRMAN:

Ms. Greene, a couple of points, what about the question of contributions. Mr. Riley, for example, says in his complaint that the Courier and the Herald Leader made unlawful corporate contributions in the forms of these editorials. What can you tell us about how you all feel about whether or not that was a contribution?

MS. GREENE:

We would endorse the General Counsel's recommendation and findings in her report to the Registry on the interpretation of that term, Mr. Smith.

That's all of my

CHAIRMAN:

So, you're saying, in essence, that's not a contribution?

MS. GREENE:

Yes.

CHAIRMAN:

But, when he spoke, Mr. Lewis--Mr. Riley talked about the political value of an editorial as opposed to the actual value of--a monetary value. Would you want to speak as to that?

MS. GREENE:

Well, in the very broad sense of the phrase political value, I would certainly agree with him. In the sense that the 1st Amendment provides for this nation, the foundation that enables us to be what we are, that makes our democracy function as effectively as it does. The 1st Amendment and publications protected by the 1st Amendment certainly have tremendous political value to our political system.

CHAIRMAN:

Any other questions for Ms. Greene?

Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN:

Okay. We are now back in session, in regular session. We will need to have a motion so that we can dispose of all of these cases. We are talking about the four cases that are before us today. Michael Douglas Lewis versus Courier Journal, case 1999-153; Michael Douglas versus Patton- Henry and Lexington Herald, case No. 1999-157; Mr. Riley versus Patton-Henry, C.J. and the Lexington Herald, that would be 1999-154; and then Mr. Richard Lewis versus the Courier Journal, Paul Patton and Patton-Henry for Kentucky, that will be case No. 1999-158. Now, we will need a motion from a member of the Board to properly dispose of those.

MR. SANDERS:

Mr. Chairman, I have a motion as it relates to all four cases. I'm going to move to dismiss in all four cases. And, I'd like to state why for the benefit of the petitioners or the complainants and everyone else present.

I think everyone on the Registry recognizes that the news media or newspapers publication of an editorial endorsing a candidate for political office is protected as political speech that goes to the very heart of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. And, cannot be prohibited by state law due to the effect of the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, that declares that the Federal Constitutional law take precedence over any and all that Kentucky or any of our sister states might wish to pass.

I do state for the benefit of the complainants, my opinion, at least, that the implication of our actions today, if the Board adopts my motion to dismiss, that the implications of that dismissal on the political speech of any other individuals or any other corporations or any other citizens, be they corporate or individual of the Commonwealth or other states, is simply not before us today. And, there are some very interesting issues raised by the complainants in this case as they might impact other cases that may be brought on other days. So, I would encourage those who are interested in this issue to continue to pursue it--pursue the natural extension of the reasoning that we announced today.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source #1

Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the

Federal Constitution, October 17, 1787:

[1] It is alleged that the liberty of the press is not guaranteed by the new constitution. But this objection is wholly unfounded. The liberty of the press does not come within the jurisdiction of federal government. It is firmly established in all the states either by law, or positive declarations in bills of right; and not being mentioned in the federal constitution, is not and cannot be abridged by Congress, it stands on the basis of the respective state-constitutions. Should any state resign to Congress the exclusive jurisdiction of a certain district, which should include any town where presses are already established, it is in the power of the state to reserve the liberty of the press, or any other fundamental privilege, and make it an immutable condition of the grant, that such rights shall never be violated. All objections therefore on this score are "baseless visions."

Most state constitutions include an "inviolable clause" forbidding any amendments or restrictions to the right of conscience, the freedom of religion, the right to speak, the right to own or hire the use of a printing press and the right to seek redress for grievances. (RAL)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source #2

Excerpts below are from page images 540 and 541 on Elliot's Debates--KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF 1798 AND 1799.

[THE ORIGINAL DRAFT PREPARED BY THOMAS JEFFERSON.]

[The following Resolutions passed the House of Representatives of Kentucky , Nov. 10, 1798. On

the passage of the 1st Resolution, one dissentient; 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, two dissentients; 9th, three dissentients.]

3. Resolved, That it is true, as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people;" and that, no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press, being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the states, or to the people; that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech, and of the press, may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use, should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed; and thus also they guarded against all abridgment, by the United States, of the freedom of religious principles and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this, stated by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference; and that, in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," thereby guarding, in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press, insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others,--and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That therefore the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th of July, 1798, entitled "An Act in Addition to the Act entitled 'An Act for the Punishment of certain Crimes against the United States,'" which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source #3

From CENTINEL, NO. II. Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789

To the People of Pennsylvania.

FRIENDS, COUNTRYMEN, and FELLOW-CITIZENS,

As long as the liberty of the press continues unviolated, and the people have the right of expressing and publishing their sentiments upon every public measure, it is next to impossible to enslave a free nation. The state of society must be very corrupt and base indeed, when the people in possession of such a monitor as the press, can be induced to exchange the heaven born blessings of liberty for the galling chains of despotism. --Men of an aspiring and tyrannical disposition, sensible of this truth, have ever been inimical to the press, and have considered the shackling of it, as the first step towards the accomplishment of their hateful domination, and the entire suppression of all liberty of public discussion, as necessary to its support. --For even a standing army, that grand engine of oppression, if it were as numerous as the abilities of any nation could maintain, would not be equal to the purposes of despotism over an enlightened people.

The Truth About Election Laws

by Richard Lewis

The Truth: When the Courier Journal Newspaper decides to publish a letter from an individual in support of or in opposition to the election of a candidate or a constitutional amendment the "Courier Journal" a private business is granting that lucky individual a "limited franchise" a "temporary exemption" from state election laws.

If the Courier Journal refused to print their letter and the same individual decided to distribute the same endorsement, in a quantity equivalent to the Courier Journals circulation, in the form of apolitical handbill that same individual would be required to register with the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance.

That individual would be limited in how they could raise money to pay for their handbill and its distribution, and would be subject to reporting requirements, possible fines and limitations regarding legal definitions of coordination, express advocacy, and association which have not been firmly established in 23 years of court test. Of course taxpayers fund investigations of possible election law violations and candidates, politically active Citizens, grassroots organizations and political parties hire attorneys to defend themselves against accusations that they have violated complex election laws!

An individual can face considerable legal cost defending themselves if they are accused of "coordinating" with a candidate's committee even if they are later found to be innocent. I have personal knowledge of a federal election complaint lodged with the Federal Election Commission in 1994. The definition of coordination -- the major accusation in this complaint was found to be unconstitutional in May, 2001 adding insult to injury that complaint was still active in 2006 imagine the legal cost and hardship involved in a nine year legal battle with the FEC . Skipper Martin and Danny Ross were accused of violating Kentucky election laws during Paul Patton's 1995 gubernatorial campaign. Their eight year legal battle ended when Governor Patton pardoned them in 2003!

Does our Kentucky Constitution grant any private business the authority to choose who will and who will not be exempt from state election laws? By what lawful authority does any 'private corporation' presume to restrict, exempt or determine the "Rights" of any Living Citizen?

The Truth: There are some serious legal questions stated in the previous paragraphs. How can a private corporation, which is for the purpose of law a [s]ingle person, "arbitrarily determine" who is and who is not entitled to unrestricted free press rights?