<i>Limiting anyone, that's right, <u><b>ANYONE</u></b> (defined as special intrest) to when or when they can't voice their own political ads goes against the first amendment of our constitution!</i>
Oh, and Ryo, I'll give you a good response as soon as I can find the time. I'm not ignoring you.
Not true. Define Libel and Slander then. It's campaign reform anyways, you should be rejoicing. You need to be more pragmatic then that. The whole point is that certain liberties are being limited in order to preserve other liberties.
What matters more ?
A special interest group running ads making promises for candidates they haven't even contacted, shady deals involving soft money, tying politicians to corporations rather then the people that voted them in ?
OR
Fair elections where politicians are not being bought by corporations and special interest groups, where politicians have control over what he says rather than interest groups putting words in their mouths ?
<!--QuoteBegin--Sirus+Dec 14 2003, 09:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Dec 14 2003, 09:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A special interest group running ads making promises for candidates they haven't even contacted, shady deals involving soft money, tying politicians to corporations rather then the people that voted them in ?
OR
Fair elections where politicians are not being bought by corporations and special interest groups, where politicians have control over what he says rather than interest groups putting words in their mouths, and no one can even talk about them to say otherwise?
OR
A ban on soft money, and anyone is still open to voice their oppinions through advirtisements if they wish, and the first amendment is left alone?
I'll take the latter. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Fixed!
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
edited December 2003
So a group of people decide that they want to elect a politician to vote for some legislation that they want passed. They decide to pay for advertisements that denounce the opponent and praise their representative. Now let's say that this group has a shady background and the legislation they want isn't popular. So they fork out the cash.
There is nothing that says this politician is required to vote for legislation that he/she doesn't agree with. This is where the corruption claim comes into play. Find me the law that says a politician is forced to vote in favor of some financial backer. "But if they don't vote the way these financiers demand, then the politician won't get any money!". Correct.
Is this the fault of people who pay for ads? No. The politician has free will to vote on anything he/she wishes. Of course, if they want to get elected again, they better pay attention to their voters. <b>It is the career politicians that are corrupting the US government, not the people buying advertisements.</b>
All of this may sound naive but from a historical perspective this law is "throwing the baby out with the bath water". It will serve no purpose other than to limit grass roots movements and provide free reign for the already yellow journalists to present their chosen candidate on television programs and neglect the others.
Here's an excerpt from an article by Cal Thomas:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The court bought the argument by the law's proponents that money is inherently corrupting and that by limiting the amount of money and the timing of speech, the entire political process will somehow become more virtuous. Like legislation designed to control guns rather than the people who use guns illegally, money cannot corrupt politicians. Politicians corrupt themselves. Last year at a gathering of journalists in Boston, Nat Hentoff (an authority on the First Amendment) and I heard Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., respond to a question about limits to political ads one to two months before either a primary or general election. Meehan explained the limits were necessary "because that's when people are paying attention." So, when people are most interested in politics is when they should receive less information about the candidates? What kind of twisted reasoning is this?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> *Correction* Here he sites a previous Supreme Court decision overturning similar legislation in 1958: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Political action committees can still function under the ruling, but PACs must provide lists of contributors to anyone interested. Hentoff reminds me of the 1958 NAACP vs. Alabama case in which the state sued the civil rights organization to stop it from conducting activities in Alabama on grounds that it had failed to comply with the requirement that "foreign corporations" register before doing business in the state. During the proceedings, Alabama requested the NAACP produce a large number of its records. The organization did so but held back its membership lists. The Alabama court found the NAACP in contempt and imposed a large fine. In its opinion overturning the state court ruling, Supreme Court Justice John Harlan wrote, "Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly. ." Justice Harlan then said something that could serve as a stern rebuke to the five members of the current Court who have effectively diminished the freedom of political speech: "In the domain of these indispensable liberties, whether of speech, press or association, the decisions of this Court recognize the abridgement of such rights, even though unintended, may inevitably follow from varied forms of governmental action. ."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hope we're wrong. Believe me. I hope we're wrong.
It's the reelection which is the corrupting part. Many politicians choose to accept the money because they need it. And if they don't fulfill some promises with those companies, they won't get reelected the next campaign because their financial backers aren't too happy with them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Tell me why it's a good thing that people can't voice their oppinions on TV/Radio? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can. Say your local radio station runs a program along the lines of "Tell us what you think about candidate X". You can ring up and tell them. Your local TV studio could do the same thing. You just can't use your considerable personal wealth to finance an unbelieveably biased commerical targetted on a particular individual.
Forlorn, as has been said, if you want to put a commerical in the air saying "The Republicans have done the following wonderful things for the country, whilst those snide, snivelling Democrats have brought us nothing but trouble" you can still do that! This law doesn't prevent that. So your political opinions can still be aired so long as you fork over the required cash. You could even put a commerical on your local state TV saying "If the Republicans are elected in this state, great and prosperous times will come, but if the demonic Democrats are elected, fire and pestilance shall rain upon our fair state!".
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Dec 15 2003, 03:02 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Dec 15 2003, 03:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Tell me why it's a good thing that people can't voice their oppinions on TV/Radio? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can. Say your local radio station runs a program along the lines of "Tell us what you think about candidate X". You can ring up and tell them. Your local TV studio could do the same thing. You just can't use your considerable personal wealth to finance an unbelieveably biased commerical targetted on a particular individual.
Forlorn, as has been said, if you want to put a commerical in the air saying "The Republicans have done the following wonderful things for the country, whilst those snide, snivelling Democrats have brought us nothing but trouble" you can still do that! This law doesn't prevent that. So your political opinions can still be aired so long as you fork over the required cash. You could even put a commerical on your local state TV saying "If the Republicans are elected in this state, great and prosperous times will come, but if the demonic Democrats are elected, fire and pestilance shall rain upon our fair state!". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> America is about equality of <i>opportunity</i> not about equality of <i>results</i>--it being a republican government and slightly-regulated market economy, not a socialist collective. I think most people would agree that in America, you are guaranteed nothing specific as an outcome, but rather an equal opportunity to compete for that result. The acquisition of wealth or the maintenance of inherited wealth does nothing more than demonstrate that you or someone before you has taken the opportunity they were offered and achieved more than another person--which is the logical extension of an opportunity-based equality system (some people achieve more than others). Therefore, since they (or a previous member of their family) has achieved more from their initial opportunity, they shouldn't have the right to use their acquired wealth as they see fit within the confines of their equal rights to freedom of speech, etc.? Penalize the rich or influential for having <i>achieved more within the same system than their peers</i>?
Additionally, demonizing a certain party is even less valid as a campaign tactic than attacking a singular candidate if the intent is an "informed" populace that actively seeks the polls. Straight-ticket and bloc voting is the bane of a party system that--at least at some level needs or desires an <i>informed</i> voter base. Additionally, the candidate himself formulates his <i>own</i> stance on issues within the acceptable parameters of his party's platform (he wouldn't be the ultimate candidate if he deviated too far from their platform), so attacking the party is blind, ignorant and achieves nothing if the intent behind the commercial/ad is to draw attention to a particular candidate's particular stance on an issue.
Lastly, as a person whose political opinions are vastly different on various issues (from federally standardizing the public education system to the advocacy of ANWAR exploitation for fossil fuels), blanketing one party with a specific stance is not only going to make me listen <i>less</i> to a specific add, but it's going to show your ignorance rather than astute political advocacy. You have to understand that no party has a single stance on any issue; you have to understand that not every Republican is a conservative war hawk and not every Democrat is a pro-abortion liberal environmentalist--there are degrees in BOTH parties; you have to understand that people's views are not straight-conservative or straight-liberal, and they may advocate candidates from different parties for different reasons for different offices; lastly, you have to understand that the majority of political activity comes from well-funded individuals, corporations or unions, and subsequently, they are the most active at the polls--rather than your lower and middle class Americans (despite some voting blocs out there, it IS a general trend)--so why deny them the opportunity to present their views, as they generally have the most vested interest in the major issues involved. Why shouldn't major health insurance companies have the right to run ads presenting their view of any health-care or prescription drug plans a president/candidate advocates? They have a whole lot at stake, and they present an opposing viewpoint--which just happens to lead to discourse and possible the de-fossilization of some people's minds...
Ryo, you still fail to answer my question. While you still <b>can</b> run advirtisements and voice your oppinions, you can only do so as long as you don't break these requirements and meet this criteria.
<b>Earth to common sense: That's not free speech! You aren't protecting anyone, but this is starting a downhill trend!</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 16 2003, 03:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 16 2003, 03:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ryo, you still fail to answer my question. While you still <b>can</b> run advirtisements and voice your oppinions, you can only do so as long as you don't break these requirements and meet this criteria.
<b>Earth to common sense: That's not free speech! You aren't protecting anyone, but this is starting a downhill trend!</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So your all for big corporations bankrolling election results then I take it ?
<!--QuoteBegin---_Phoenix_-+Dec 16 2003, 11:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (-_Phoenix_- @ Dec 16 2003, 11:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So your all for big corporations bankrolling election results then I take it ? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Bankrolling a campaign is NOT funding the results. Just ask any of dozens of Gore supporters that put large sums of money into his campaign.
He's not addressing the soft money ban either. Way to take his argument and do nothing with it but throw more negative vibes into this thread.
He's addressing the ADS run, NOT the funding of campaigns. He's talking about the fact that private entities are being denied full freedom of speech within the confines of constitutional law. Try reading my post, and give me a legitimate reason why these ads should be banned.
Ok, ok, fine. You guys seem to be absolutly convinced that this violates the Constitution, and I won't try and convince you otherwise any more. But I'll let you in on something. It doesn't matter what you guys think. It doesn't matter what I think. Because the fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court, Congress and the President of the United States of America saw fit to pass this bill into law, and as such it is not in violation of the Constitution. It is the law, made so by some of the people who know far, far more about Constitutional law than any of us on this forum.
Without open books there can't be any accountability for where the money comes from, and no one can make informed choices based on it. Ergo we gain nothing but a "fuzzy" that our elected officials have said "point taken, now shoo".
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 12 2003, 10:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 12 2003, 10:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <a href='http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/softmoneyban.htm' target='_blank'>A very concise write up on what the BCRA is, with links to more if you desire it.</a>
Here's the jist of it here for your convience, but if you want to read the great dissenting oppinions written by the Supreme court judges, click on the link above.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The key components of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), as McCain-Feingold has been known since its passage, include a ban on soft money and restrictions on issue ads in the weeks before an election. These restrictions are constitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court said today. A closely divided court, voting 5-4 or 6-3 on most parts of the case, agreed today with campaign finance supporters that corruption in politics, or even the appearance of corruption, justifies the limitations on free speech that such restrictions create.
Direct contributions from corporations and unions to candidates have long been prohibited under federal law, and contributions from individuals to candidates have been limited to $1,000 per election (increased to $2,000 under BCRA). However, corporations, unions and wealthy individuals were, until the passage of BCRA, permitted to make large, unregulated contributions to political parties, known as "soft money." Soft money was not subject to the contribution limits in federal law. The court today said that such contributions exploit loopholes and circumvent the intent of campaign finance laws, and limits on them are constitutional. The elimination of soft money means that political parties and candidates may now only raise money under the limits of the law, and the practice of raising funds without limitations will end.
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>Restrictions on Political Advertising</span>
<b>A second key provision of BCRA upheld today deals with issue ads. BCRA created a new class of ads, called electioneering communications, defined as broadcast, cable or satellite ads that refer to a clearly identified candidate, are aired in the 60 days before a general election or the 30 days before a primary election, and are "targeted: (the ad can be received by 50,000 people in the Congressional district or state where the election is being held). Under the old campaign finance laws, such ads were largely unregulated. Under BCRA, corporations and unions are prohibited from airing such ads, and political parties may only pay for them with "hard money," money raised under the limits of the law.</b>
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>What It Means for States</span>
BCRA regulates the campaigns of federal candidates, so most of its provisions do not apply to state campaigns. The one exception pertains to the fundraising activities of state political parties. Under BCRA, any campaign activity a state political party engages in on behalf of a federal candidate must be paid for with "hard money" - money raised in the limited amounts permitted by the law. Those limits are as follows: Individuals are limited to giving no more than $10,000 per year to each state, district, and local political party committee. Individuals also are limited to a total of $37,500 in the aggregate per two-year election cycle to all committees other than national party committees. This includes PACs, state and local party committees, etc. Large, unregulated "soft money" contributions may no longer be routed through state political parties to help pay for federal campaigns. Note that these limits apply only to funds that a state or local political party raises to fund activities relating to a federal candidate's campaign. State laws still apply to fundraising for state and local campaign activities.
Note, the only thing I have problems with is the part in bold. It is obviously a direct violation of our free speech in America. They are limiting our political discourse. Even if it means I won't see 100 commercials a day bashing bush, I'm completely against it. This is <i>wrong</i>. There is no logical or sane reason as to why this should happen.
Further more, this means that if there is no more political advirtising, as the government is now limiting it, how will it control it? Our TV is already heavily watched by the government; anything over that will be caught easily. However, the other two targets which are much harder to regulate but will probably be hit, and hit hard:
Radio Internet
There will have to be more and more controls on these as well.
Hooray.
What's more, not only is this bill unconstitutional, it sets a landmark for two things:
<b>1. It is a monumental failure of our entire government system, all 3 branches, as:</b>
- Our legislative branch passed it (mainly the demoncrats passed it, with some exceptions, and mainly republicans voted against it, with some exceptions). - It didn't get vetoed by our executive branch. Bush clearly stated when he was campaigning for President in 2000 that he would never have a soft money ban, or furthermore, something which would freaking eliminate political ads. GG Free speech. I don't know if Bush vetoed it, but the House and Senate overturned it, but from what I believe Bush passed it. Can anyone tell me if Bush did indeed veto or pass this? I will surely remember this come election time. - The supreme court actually [u]managed to ignore our bill of rights[/b] in a 5-4 desicion. There are some GREAT dissenting articles written by the judges in the minority, it makes me sad that the other 5 justices could fall victim to petty politics and ignore the obvious. The supreme court should have struck down the bill 9-0 untill the part on limiting political discourse was eliminated, but alas, apparently our justices are dumb morons.
<b>2. All supreme court desicions are landmarks for other desicions.</b>
This means that the bill of rights could be ignored, again. And again. Remember, it always starts small. You may think: "Oh big deal, no more commercials of political crap," but the truth is that if the Bill of Rights can be ignored once, it can be done twice, three times, or however many is needed to give the government control.
I'd thought I'd be older when this finally happened, the usurping of our basic rights as American citizens - no, as human beings, but I guess reality couldn't wait. I feel sorry that most American's haven't even noticed that this has happened, and I also feel sorry that I'm virtually powerless to stop such a thing.
I have one vote to spend come next year, and I have no clue of who I should vote for. Bush <b>is</b> a liberal. He should really have campaigned as a demoncrat (spelling on purpose). I won't vote for demoncrats ever, but out of the two choices I'll have next year, Bush or Dean, it's shaping up to be a really crappy desicion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know about you but I'd rather not have corporate politics shoved down my throat while I try to watch baywatch.
<!--QuoteBegin--the johnjacob+Dec 12 2003, 11:38 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (the johnjacob @ Dec 12 2003, 11:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i agree with scorpian, this bill was passed in an attempt to even the playing field a bit more, if this means your beloved republicans and your religiously worshipped conservatives don't get elected one two less times because they can't get money from their big business buddies SO BE IT.
oh, and bush is a conservative, i'm sorry to say, you're wrong on that one too. in order to be elected president a person has to be moderate more than he/she is anything else, there're just too many people to please. a straight conservative or liberal(either one) has no chance in this government.
oh and, so you know, no matter which country you're in liberal is socialist, though, how extreme you are on the political spectrum is how exactly how you're defined...far left is communist, complete evening of all the classes, blah blah blah, this isn't a political debate, then the libertarians, etc, and right at the middle are the democrats, who sit all nice and pretty right next to the rep[ublicans, you beloved "conservatives." if you want to live udner the rule of a strict conservative leader go start up a dictatorship some where in the south pacific. a government with that kind of extremist leadership has no place in the free world. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You, my friend, need to learn how to write sentances.
<!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Dec 12 2003, 12:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Dec 12 2003, 12:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So it's okay to throw out a perfectly good 1st amendment to suit the convenience of a few liberals?
This is the same sort of crap republicans and democrats go at every year. You know when republicans try to pass a bill to help homeless people, democrats didn't approve unless they added a few off-the-wall laws like "Cannot chain a girraffe to a light post." Ever wonder how goofy laws like that get formed? THIS IS WHY! The reason they do that is to make the republicans look bad if they pass it, so the democrats can later point and say "See! They approved this! Look at the stupid republicans! Vote for us!"
It's all crap. It really needs to stop. Either we change the amendment, or you DON'T ban freedom of speech EVER!!! There should be NO exceptions to the rule. Exceptions to the rule are what allow governors and mayors to avoid the electric chair when they do a crime punishable by death. Exceptions to the rule are why foreigners with immunity cannot be touched when they deliberately steal from stores. Exceptions to the rule are how legitimate bills NEVER get passed.
I sincerely believe Democrats would do America harm if they were in the position to in order to take power. I think they've just proven that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Bravo.
<!--QuoteBegin--EternalMonkey+Dec 12 2003, 08:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EternalMonkey @ Dec 12 2003, 08:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> OK, I somehow came across this topic, and I was shocked, shocked I tell you that there are other people out there that see the truth that Bush is liberal. Now he might not be "liberal" in a Ted Kennedy sense, but certainly he is left of center. Here is my reasoning based on someone's comments about the environment, abortion, health care and education.
The Environment: This I can't defend, because Bush is obviously looking out for the interests of big business. If your an environmentalists, Bush is probably your worst enemy.
Abortion: The recent partial abirth abortion bill will never get past the crazy court system, and Bush knows it. It simply a ploy to win over social conservatives who typically vote on that issue.
Health Care: The infamous socialist presrciption drug bill that recently passed and signed in to law is the biggest liberal/socialist move by any American president since Johnson's Great Society. (Note: Bill Clinton, who was actually very moderate, signed in welfare reform, a typically conservative position.)
Education: Also, a relatively recent Education bill was passed that hugely increased federal funding to education. Besides the huge amounts of money being spent, it is entirely unconstitutional for the federal government to fund education at all.
As far a campaign finance reform goes, it would seem as if civil libertarians would be up in arms over limiting free speech, but it is conservatives that seem to be upset over this. Personally, I am undecided on this issue, and I really didn't read a lot of what was said in this forum post.
Forlorn is right, if your a conservative, or even a moderate liberal, this is going to be a very strange election. The rhetoric used by Dean will soon mellow out once he gains the nomination and he will also move towards the center, if he wants to be the next President. It is because of this shakiness that I am independent, and I vote for people based on their record, not on their partisan label. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Good!
I to said the same thing when he passed the Patriot Act.
<!--QuoteBegin--Xzilen+Dec 17 2003, 05:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Xzilen @ Dec 17 2003, 05:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I to said the same thing when he passed the Patriot Act. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was just actually thinking about this, because the only thing I could think to add to the conversation (I think Nem summed up my feelings nicely) would be to bring it up in the contenxt of the Patriot Act, because it'd be fun to watch the sudden Chinese fire drill.
Patriot Act pales in comparison to this bad boy of a law.
Pheonix: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So your all for big corporations bankrolling election results then I take it ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for not reading a WORD I SAID, you make the discussions forum great!
Had you read more than a sentence of this thread, or my main post, you would have understood that while I agree with the soft money ban.
However, limiting broadcasts is against the consitution, #1, and #2,
IT'S NOT JUST CORPORATIONS THAT ARE LIMITED BY THIS LAW, FFS!!!!!!!!!!! IT GOES TO EVERYONE!
Holy damn, you people just fall right in line with the rethoric...
Case in point, CWAG:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't know about you but I'd rather not have corporate politics shoved down my throat while I try to watch baywatch. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ok, ok, fine. You guys seem to be absolutly convinced that this violates the Constitution, and I won't try and convince you otherwise any more. But I'll let you in on something. It doesn't matter what you guys think. It doesn't matter what I think. Because the fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court, Congress and the President of the United States of America saw fit to pass this bill into law, and as such it is not in violation of the Constitution. It is the law, made so by some of the people who know far, far more about Constitutional law than any of us on this forum. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All this thread's intent was not to bring about world revolution, but rather enlighten us all to something extreamlly outrageous, as well as shocking to the fact of how badly the US is degenerating.
The USA will soon be the URA, for United Regime of America.
I thought I'd pass by the discussions forum again, but this topic just made me sad once again :/ This is so extremely right-winged it's even frightening
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 19 2003, 08:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 19 2003, 08:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--AU-Scorpion+Dec 18 2003, 10:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AU-Scorpion @ Dec 18 2003, 10:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A very wise man, my favorite teacher, once told me:
"My right to swing my fist ends at your nose."
Forlorn, in your opinion, at what point does the right to free speech end?
Just curious. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Free speech ends when it harms others, obviously. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Just about everything you say or do can be construed or twisted or taken out of context to "hurt" someone. Our very litigous society goes to show that as well (jury system doesn't help either). Defining "hurt" is a mess all in itself, but for the most part the higher courts are in charge of it. They are the same people who are in charge of whether this BCRA mess gets anywhere. They will be either wrong or right about both the BCRA and and other free speech issues all at the same time if they do their job right.
<!--QuoteBegin--eggmac+Dec 19 2003, 08:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Dec 19 2003, 08:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I thought I'd pass by the discussions forum again, but this topic just made me sad once again :/ This is so extremely right-winged it's even frightening <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What the hell are you talking about?
#1. This forum board has many more liberals than conservatives, I'll tell you that flat out right now...
#2. You are saying that wanting a change NOT to occur that isn't going to do jack crap from any sort of corruption in politics which imposes on our basic freedoms?
<!--QuoteBegin--BathroomMonkey+Dec 17 2003, 12:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Dec 17 2003, 12:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Xzilen+Dec 17 2003, 05:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Xzilen @ Dec 17 2003, 05:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I to said the same thing when he passed the Patriot Act. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was just actually thinking about this, because the only thing I could think to add to the conversation (I think Nem summed up my feelings nicely) would be to bring it up in the contenxt of the Patriot Act, because it'd be fun to watch the sudden Chinese fire drill. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yup, as a TRUE libetarian (even if I can't spell it) with a conservative edge, I'm totally against the Patriot Act. I'm with you.
Talks about Republicans, Liberals, Ralph Nader or anything is not even applicable. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually it was mostly liberals that passed this law, following some republicans.
This was true for both the house and senate.
Bush didn't veto it either.
And there are 5 liberal justices to 4 conservative ones.
That's how it got through our government.
If you ask me, you are a terribly courrpt politican if you passed this law, because all it does is help guarentee you will be re-elected as you can't adress the mainstream of America before an election.
Talk about rigged elections.
When I get home I will post an excerpt from Nat Hentoff explaining things quite nicely.
Comments
<i>Limiting anyone, that's right, <u><b>ANYONE</u></b> (defined as special intrest) to when or when they can't voice their own political ads goes against the first amendment of our constitution!</i>
Oh, and Ryo, I'll give you a good response as soon as I can find the time. I'm not ignoring you.
What matters more ?
A special interest group running ads making promises for candidates they haven't even contacted, shady deals involving soft money, tying politicians to corporations rather then the people that voted them in ?
OR
Fair elections where politicians are not being bought by corporations and special interest groups, where politicians have control over what he says rather than interest groups putting words in their mouths ?
I'll take the latter.
OR
Fair elections where politicians are not being bought by corporations and special interest groups, where politicians have control over what he says rather than interest groups putting words in their mouths, and no one can even talk about them to say otherwise?
OR
A ban on soft money, and anyone is still open to voice their oppinions through advirtisements if they wish, and the first amendment is left alone?
I'll take the latter. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fixed!
There is nothing that says this politician is required to vote for legislation that he/she doesn't agree with. This is where the corruption claim comes into play. Find me the law that says a politician is forced to vote in favor of some financial backer. "But if they don't vote the way these financiers demand, then the politician won't get any money!". Correct.
Is this the fault of people who pay for ads? No. The politician has free will to vote on anything he/she wishes. Of course, if they want to get elected again, they better pay attention to their voters. <b>It is the career politicians that are corrupting the US government, not the people buying advertisements.</b>
All of this may sound naive but from a historical perspective this law is "throwing the baby out with the bath water". It will serve no purpose other than to limit grass roots movements and provide free reign for the already yellow journalists to present their chosen candidate on television programs and neglect the others.
Here's an excerpt from an article by Cal Thomas:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The court bought the argument by the law's proponents that money is inherently corrupting and that by limiting the amount of money and the timing of speech, the entire political process will somehow become more virtuous. Like legislation designed to control guns rather than the people who use guns illegally, money cannot corrupt politicians. Politicians corrupt themselves.
Last year at a gathering of journalists in Boston, Nat Hentoff (an authority on the First Amendment) and I heard Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., respond to a question about limits to political ads one to two months before either a primary or general election. Meehan explained the limits were necessary "because that's when people are paying attention." So, when people are most interested in politics is when they should receive less information about the candidates? What kind of twisted reasoning is this?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*Correction* Here he sites a previous Supreme Court decision overturning similar legislation in 1958:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Political action committees can still function under the ruling, but PACs must provide lists of contributors to anyone interested. Hentoff reminds me of the 1958 NAACP vs. Alabama case in which the state sued the civil rights organization to stop it from conducting activities in Alabama on grounds that it had failed to comply with the requirement that "foreign corporations" register before doing business in the state. During the proceedings, Alabama requested the NAACP produce a large number of its records. The organization did so but held back its membership lists. The Alabama court found the NAACP in contempt and imposed a large fine.
In its opinion overturning the state court ruling, Supreme Court Justice John Harlan wrote, "Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly. ." Justice Harlan then said something that could serve as a stern rebuke to the five members of the current Court who have effectively diminished the freedom of political speech: "In the domain of these indispensable liberties, whether of speech, press or association, the decisions of this Court recognize the abridgement of such rights, even though unintended, may inevitably follow from varied forms of governmental action. ."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hope we're wrong. Believe me. I hope we're wrong.
EDIT: grammar <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo-->
EDIT2: misread quote. corrected.
You can. Say your local radio station runs a program along the lines of "Tell us what you think about candidate X". You can ring up and tell them. Your local TV studio could do the same thing. You just can't use your considerable personal wealth to finance an unbelieveably biased commerical targetted on a particular individual.
Forlorn, as has been said, if you want to put a commerical in the air saying "The Republicans have done the following wonderful things for the country, whilst those snide, snivelling Democrats have brought us nothing but trouble" you can still do that! This law doesn't prevent that. So your political opinions can still be aired so long as you fork over the required cash. You could even put a commerical on your local state TV saying "If the Republicans are elected in this state, great and prosperous times will come, but if the demonic Democrats are elected, fire and pestilance shall rain upon our fair state!".
You can. Say your local radio station runs a program along the lines of "Tell us what you think about candidate X". You can ring up and tell them. Your local TV studio could do the same thing. You just can't use your considerable personal wealth to finance an unbelieveably biased commerical targetted on a particular individual.
Forlorn, as has been said, if you want to put a commerical in the air saying "The Republicans have done the following wonderful things for the country, whilst those snide, snivelling Democrats have brought us nothing but trouble" you can still do that! This law doesn't prevent that. So your political opinions can still be aired so long as you fork over the required cash. You could even put a commerical on your local state TV saying "If the Republicans are elected in this state, great and prosperous times will come, but if the demonic Democrats are elected, fire and pestilance shall rain upon our fair state!". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
America is about equality of <i>opportunity</i> not about equality of <i>results</i>--it being a republican government and slightly-regulated market economy, not a socialist collective. I think most people would agree that in America, you are guaranteed nothing specific as an outcome, but rather an equal opportunity to compete for that result. The acquisition of wealth or the maintenance of inherited wealth does nothing more than demonstrate that you or someone before you has taken the opportunity they were offered and achieved more than another person--which is the logical extension of an opportunity-based equality system (some people achieve more than others). Therefore, since they (or a previous member of their family) has achieved more from their initial opportunity, they shouldn't have the right to use their acquired wealth as they see fit within the confines of their equal rights to freedom of speech, etc.? Penalize the rich or influential for having <i>achieved more within the same system than their peers</i>?
Additionally, demonizing a certain party is even less valid as a campaign tactic than attacking a singular candidate if the intent is an "informed" populace that actively seeks the polls. Straight-ticket and bloc voting is the bane of a party system that--at least at some level needs or desires an <i>informed</i> voter base. Additionally, the candidate himself formulates his <i>own</i> stance on issues within the acceptable parameters of his party's platform (he wouldn't be the ultimate candidate if he deviated too far from their platform), so attacking the party is blind, ignorant and achieves nothing if the intent behind the commercial/ad is to draw attention to a particular candidate's particular stance on an issue.
Lastly, as a person whose political opinions are vastly different on various issues (from federally standardizing the public education system to the advocacy of ANWAR exploitation for fossil fuels), blanketing one party with a specific stance is not only going to make me listen <i>less</i> to a specific add, but it's going to show your ignorance rather than astute political advocacy. You have to understand that no party has a single stance on any issue; you have to understand that not every Republican is a conservative war hawk and not every Democrat is a pro-abortion liberal environmentalist--there are degrees in BOTH parties; you have to understand that people's views are not straight-conservative or straight-liberal, and they may advocate candidates from different parties for different reasons for different offices; lastly, you have to understand that the majority of political activity comes from well-funded individuals, corporations or unions, and subsequently, they are the most active at the polls--rather than your lower and middle class Americans (despite some voting blocs out there, it IS a general trend)--so why deny them the opportunity to present their views, as they generally have the most vested interest in the major issues involved. Why shouldn't major health insurance companies have the right to run ads presenting their view of any health-care or prescription drug plans a president/candidate advocates? They have a whole lot at stake, and they present an opposing viewpoint--which just happens to lead to discourse and possible the de-fossilization of some people's minds...
Ryo, you still fail to answer my question. While you still <b>can</b> run advirtisements and voice your oppinions, you can only do so as long as you don't break these requirements and meet this criteria.
<b>Earth to common sense: That's not free speech! You aren't protecting anyone, but this is starting a downhill trend!</b>
<b>Earth to common sense: That's not free speech! You aren't protecting anyone, but this is starting a downhill trend!</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So your all for big corporations bankrolling election results then I take it ?
So your all for big corporations bankrolling election results then I take it ? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bankrolling a campaign is NOT funding the results. Just ask any of dozens of Gore supporters that put large sums of money into his campaign.
He's not addressing the soft money ban either. Way to take his argument and do nothing with it but throw more negative vibes into this thread.
He's addressing the ADS run, NOT the funding of campaigns. He's talking about the fact that private entities are being denied full freedom of speech within the confines of constitutional law. Try reading my post, and give me a legitimate reason why these ads should be banned.
Without open books there can't be any accountability for where the money comes from, and no one can make informed choices based on it. Ergo we gain nothing but a "fuzzy" that our elected officials have said "point taken, now shoo".
Here's the jist of it here for your convience, but if you want to read the great dissenting oppinions written by the Supreme court judges, click on the link above.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The key components of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), as McCain-Feingold has been known since its passage, include a ban on soft money and restrictions on issue ads in the weeks before an election. These restrictions are constitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court said today. A closely divided court, voting 5-4 or 6-3 on most parts of the case, agreed today with campaign finance supporters that corruption in politics, or even the appearance of corruption, justifies the limitations on free speech that such restrictions create.
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>Soft Money Ban</span>
Direct contributions from corporations and unions to candidates have long been prohibited under federal law, and contributions from individuals to candidates have been limited to $1,000 per election (increased to $2,000 under BCRA). However, corporations, unions and wealthy individuals were, until the passage of BCRA, permitted to make large, unregulated contributions to political parties, known as "soft money." Soft money was not subject to the contribution limits in federal law. The court today said that such contributions exploit loopholes and circumvent the intent of campaign finance laws, and limits on them are constitutional. The elimination of soft money means that political parties and candidates may now only raise money under the limits of the law, and the practice of raising funds without limitations will end.
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>Restrictions on Political Advertising</span>
<b>A second key provision of BCRA upheld today deals with issue ads. BCRA created a new class of ads, called electioneering communications, defined as broadcast, cable or satellite ads that refer to a clearly identified candidate, are aired in the 60 days before a general election or the 30 days before a primary election, and are "targeted: (the ad can be received by 50,000 people in the Congressional district or state where the election is being held). Under the old campaign finance laws, such ads were largely unregulated. Under BCRA, corporations and unions are prohibited from airing such ads, and political parties may only pay for them with "hard money," money raised under the limits of the law.</b>
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>What It Means for States</span>
BCRA regulates the campaigns of federal candidates, so most of its provisions do not apply to state campaigns. The one exception pertains to the fundraising activities of state political parties. Under BCRA, any campaign activity a state political party engages in on behalf of a federal candidate must be paid for with "hard money" - money raised in the limited amounts permitted by the law. Those limits are as follows: Individuals are limited to giving no more than $10,000 per year to each state, district, and local political party committee. Individuals also are limited to a total of $37,500 in the aggregate per two-year election cycle to all committees other than national party committees. This includes PACs, state and local party committees, etc. Large, unregulated "soft money" contributions may no longer be routed through state political parties to help pay for federal campaigns. Note that these limits apply only to funds that a state or local political party raises to fund activities relating to a federal candidate's campaign. State laws still apply to fundraising for state and local campaign activities.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Truely a sad sad day in America.
Note, the only thing I have problems with is the part in bold. It is obviously a direct violation of our free speech in America. They are limiting our political discourse. Even if it means I won't see 100 commercials a day bashing bush, I'm completely against it. This is <i>wrong</i>. There is no logical or sane reason as to why this should happen.
Further more, this means that if there is no more political advirtising, as the government is now limiting it, how will it control it? Our TV is already heavily watched by the government; anything over that will be caught easily. However, the other two targets which are much harder to regulate but will probably be hit, and hit hard:
Radio
Internet
There will have to be more and more controls on these as well.
Hooray.
What's more, not only is this bill unconstitutional, it sets a landmark for two things:
<b>1. It is a monumental failure of our entire government system, all 3 branches, as:</b>
- Our legislative branch passed it (mainly the demoncrats passed it, with some exceptions, and mainly republicans voted against it, with some exceptions).
- It didn't get vetoed by our executive branch. Bush clearly stated when he was campaigning for President in 2000 that he would never have a soft money ban, or furthermore, something which would freaking eliminate political ads. GG Free speech. I don't know if Bush vetoed it, but the House and Senate overturned it, but from what I believe Bush passed it. Can anyone tell me if Bush did indeed veto or pass this? I will surely remember this come election time.
- The supreme court actually [u]managed to ignore our bill of rights[/b] in a 5-4 desicion. There are some GREAT dissenting articles written by the judges in the minority, it makes me sad that the other 5 justices could fall victim to petty politics and ignore the obvious. The supreme court should have struck down the bill 9-0 untill the part on limiting political discourse was eliminated, but alas, apparently our justices are dumb morons.
<b>2. All supreme court desicions are landmarks for other desicions.</b>
This means that the bill of rights could be ignored, again. And again. Remember, it always starts small. You may think: "Oh big deal, no more commercials of political crap," but the truth is that if the Bill of Rights can be ignored once, it can be done twice, three times, or however many is needed to give the government control.
I'd thought I'd be older when this finally happened, the usurping of our basic rights as American citizens - no, as human beings, but I guess reality couldn't wait. I feel sorry that most American's haven't even noticed that this has happened, and I also feel sorry that I'm virtually powerless to stop such a thing.
I have one vote to spend come next year, and I have no clue of who I should vote for. Bush <b>is</b> a liberal. He should really have campaigned as a demoncrat (spelling on purpose). I won't vote for demoncrats ever, but out of the two choices I'll have next year, Bush or Dean, it's shaping up to be a really crappy desicion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know about you but I'd rather not have corporate politics shoved down my throat while I try to watch baywatch.
oh, and bush is a conservative, i'm sorry to say, you're wrong on that one too. in order to be elected president a person has to be moderate more than he/she is anything else, there're just too many people to please. a straight conservative or liberal(either one) has no chance in this government.
oh and, so you know, no matter which country you're in liberal is socialist, though, how extreme you are on the political spectrum is how exactly how you're defined...far left is communist, complete evening of all the classes, blah blah blah, this isn't a political debate, then the libertarians, etc, and right at the middle are the democrats, who sit all nice and pretty right next to the rep[ublicans, you beloved "conservatives." if you want to live udner the rule of a strict conservative leader go start up a dictatorship some where in the south pacific. a government with that kind of extremist leadership has no place in the free world. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You, my friend, need to learn how to write sentances.
This is the same sort of crap republicans and democrats go at every year. You know when republicans try to pass a bill to help homeless people, democrats didn't approve unless they added a few off-the-wall laws like "Cannot chain a girraffe to a light post." Ever wonder how goofy laws like that get formed? THIS IS WHY! The reason they do that is to make the republicans look bad if they pass it, so the democrats can later point and say "See! They approved this! Look at the stupid republicans! Vote for us!"
It's all crap. It really needs to stop. Either we change the amendment, or you DON'T ban freedom of speech EVER!!! There should be NO exceptions to the rule. Exceptions to the rule are what allow governors and mayors to avoid the electric chair when they do a crime punishable by death. Exceptions to the rule are why foreigners with immunity cannot be touched when they deliberately steal from stores. Exceptions to the rule are how legitimate bills NEVER get passed.
I sincerely believe Democrats would do America harm if they were in the position to in order to take power. I think they've just proven that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bravo.
Here is my reasoning based on someone's comments about the environment, abortion, health care and education.
The Environment: This I can't defend, because Bush is obviously looking out for the interests of big business. If your an environmentalists, Bush is probably your worst enemy.
Abortion: The recent partial abirth abortion bill will never get past the crazy court system, and Bush knows it. It simply a ploy to win over social conservatives who typically vote on that issue.
Health Care: The infamous socialist presrciption drug bill that recently passed and signed in to law is the biggest liberal/socialist move by any American president since Johnson's Great Society. (Note: Bill Clinton, who was actually very moderate, signed in welfare reform, a typically conservative position.)
Education: Also, a relatively recent Education bill was passed that hugely increased federal funding to education. Besides the huge amounts of money being spent, it is entirely unconstitutional for the federal government to fund education at all.
As far a campaign finance reform goes, it would seem as if civil libertarians would be up in arms over limiting free speech, but it is conservatives that seem to be upset over this. Personally, I am undecided on this issue, and I really didn't read a lot of what was said in this forum post.
Forlorn is right, if your a conservative, or even a moderate liberal, this is going to be a very strange election. The rhetoric used by Dean will soon mellow out once he gains the nomination and he will also move towards the center, if he wants to be the next President. It is because of this shakiness that I am independent, and I vote for people based on their record, not on their partisan label. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good!
I to said the same thing when he passed the Patriot Act.
I was just actually thinking about this, because the only thing I could think to add to the conversation (I think Nem summed up my feelings nicely) would be to bring it up in the contenxt of the Patriot Act, because it'd be fun to watch the sudden Chinese fire drill.
Pheonix:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So your all for big corporations bankrolling election results then I take it ?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for not reading a WORD I SAID, you make the discussions forum great!
Had you read more than a sentence of this thread, or my main post, you would have understood that while I agree with the soft money ban.
However, limiting broadcasts is against the consitution, #1, and #2,
IT'S NOT JUST CORPORATIONS THAT ARE LIMITED BY THIS LAW, FFS!!!!!!!!!!! IT GOES TO EVERYONE!
Holy damn, you people just fall right in line with the rethoric...
Case in point, CWAG:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't know about you but I'd rather not have corporate politics shoved down my throat while I try to watch baywatch. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ok, ok, fine. You guys seem to be absolutly convinced that this violates the Constitution, and I won't try and convince you otherwise any more. But I'll let you in on something. It doesn't matter what you guys think. It doesn't matter what I think. Because the fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court, Congress and the President of the United States of America saw fit to pass this bill into law, and as such it is not in violation of the Constitution. It is the law, made so by some of the people who know far, far more about Constitutional law than any of us on this forum. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All this thread's intent was not to bring about world revolution, but rather enlighten us all to something extreamlly outrageous, as well as shocking to the fact of how badly the US is degenerating.
The USA will soon be the URA, for United Regime of America.
"My right to swing my fist ends at your nose."
Forlorn, in your opinion, at what point does the right to free speech end?
Just curious.
"My right to swing my fist ends at your nose."
Forlorn, in your opinion, at what point does the right to free speech end?
Just curious. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Free speech ends when it harms others, obviously.
"My right to swing my fist ends at your nose."
Forlorn, in your opinion, at what point does the right to free speech end?
Just curious. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Free speech ends when it harms others, obviously. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just about everything you say or do can be construed or twisted or taken out of context to "hurt" someone. Our very litigous society goes to show that as well (jury system doesn't help either). Defining "hurt" is a mess all in itself, but for the most part the higher courts are in charge of it. They are the same people who are in charge of whether this BCRA mess gets anywhere. They will be either wrong or right about both the BCRA and and other free speech issues all at the same time if they do their job right.
What the hell are you talking about?
#1. This forum board has many more liberals than conservatives, I'll tell you that flat out right now...
#2. You are saying that wanting a change NOT to occur that isn't going to do jack crap from any sort of corruption in politics which imposes on our basic freedoms?
Talks about Republicans, Liberals, Ralph Nader or anything is not even applicable.
I was just actually thinking about this, because the only thing I could think to add to the conversation (I think Nem summed up my feelings nicely) would be to bring it up in the contenxt of the Patriot Act, because it'd be fun to watch the sudden Chinese fire drill. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup, as a TRUE libetarian (even if I can't spell it) with a conservative edge, I'm totally against the Patriot Act. I'm with you.
Talks about Republicans, Liberals, Ralph Nader or anything is not even applicable. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually it was mostly liberals that passed this law, following some republicans.
This was true for both the house and senate.
Bush didn't veto it either.
And there are 5 liberal justices to 4 conservative ones.
That's how it got through our government.
If you ask me, you are a terribly courrpt politican if you passed this law, because all it does is help guarentee you will be re-elected as you can't adress the mainstream of America before an election.
Talk about rigged elections.
When I get home I will post an excerpt from Nat Hentoff explaining things quite nicely.