Kennedy 0
Yeah...the biggest effect I see coming about is.....more spam!!!
goose491 0
Is it really a bad thing, that efforts are being made to keep election campaigns on a more level playing field?
ex: In a perfect world, would a party in an election not win because of how much more money they had then the others?
Is it so bad that private companies can't jump into the mud-slinging?
ex: Shouldn't the informed voter know that the person he/she is voting for is (all of a sudden
) about gun-control without having to hear it from the NRA's 'commercial'?
If you ask me, there is nothing wrong with what is being done here. I'm not all that into politics so someone please enlighten me if I'm wrong but If I'm reading things correctly: This is an effort to stop unlimited donations to political parties and to keep private companies from adding their two cents into the election process. What's better for chosing your leader then focussing solely on what the running parties have to say... and trying your darndest to keep one from burying the others strickly because he/she has SO much more money?
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
ex: In a perfect world, would a party in an election not win because of how much more money they had then the others?
Is it so bad that private companies can't jump into the mud-slinging?
ex: Shouldn't the informed voter know that the person he/she is voting for is (all of a sudden
) about gun-control without having to hear it from the NRA's 'commercial'?
If you ask me, there is nothing wrong with what is being done here. I'm not all that into politics so someone please enlighten me if I'm wrong but If I'm reading things correctly: This is an effort to stop unlimited donations to political parties and to keep private companies from adding their two cents into the election process. What's better for chosing your leader then focussing solely on what the running parties have to say... and trying your darndest to keep one from burying the others strickly because he/she has SO much more money?
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
Quoteto keep private companies from adding their two cents into the election process.
That's the problem. I thought the same way as you until I found out this last part. There is, in effect, a gag order stating that private organizations and individuals cannot comment about candidates within a certain time period before the election.
That means the only information that you will receive is from the candidates and political parties themselves. Not only special interest groups, but independent 3rd parties will not be permitted to mention a candidate or anything about them prior to an election. If that isn't censorship, I don't know what is.
goose491 0
Quote
That means the only information that you will receive is from the candidates and political parties themselves.
And that IMHO, is the way it should be! [I]You[/I] convince me of why I should elect you... Your opponents will do the same. [I]You[/I] tell me why I shouldn't vote for the other guy... the other guy will tell me why I shouldn't vote for you.
The last time I checked, candidates are pretty apt at telling you why you shouldn't vote for "the other guy"
QuoteNot only special interest groups, but independent 3rd parties will not be permitted to mention a candidate or anything about them prior to an election. If that isn't censorship, I don't know what is.
And they shouldn't either! I don't have access to a television time slot to tell the American people why I think they should vote for so and so... why should someone else have the right to back the candidate of their choice just because they do have that access?
The second you say "independent third party", I say: "voters just like the rest of us." (well, the rest of you
).
The second you say "special interest groups" I say "Special education?" lol Then I say "If you're so interested in one particular party, then join their campaing!"
I don't think anyone would prevent you from making public, your unbiased research of all parties running for example.
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
QuoteAnd that IMHO, is the way it should be! You convince me of why I should elect you... Your opponents will do the same. You tell me why I shouldn't vote for the other guy... the other guy will tell me why I shouldn't vote for you.
Thyat strongly favors incumbents because they already have a forum and name recognition.
QuoteAnd they shouldn't either! I don't have access to a television time slot to tell the American people why I think they should vote for so and so... why should someone else have the right to back the candidate of their choice just because they do have that access?
Yes you do, you just choose not to spend your money on it. Or maybe a bunch of skydivers wanted to pool their money together to buy a tv spot endorsing someone (not that we could ever agree on someone). Why should they be prohibited from doing that?
QuoteI don't think anyone would prevent you from making public, your unbiased research of all parties running for example.
Yes they will. That's the point. Read the bill. It will be a crime to mention a candidates name in certain public forums unless you are speaking for the party.
Kennedy 0
QuoteIs it really a bad thing, that efforts are being made to keep election campaigns on a more level playing field?
ex: In a perfect world, would a party in an election not win because of how much more money they had then the others?
Like philly, I'm all for the donation limits monitoring of how campaigns spend money.
Quoteex: Shouldn't the informed voter know that the person he/she is voting for is (all of a sudden ) about gun-control without having to hear it from the NRA's 'commercial'?
If you ask me, there is nothing wrong with what is being done here. I'm not all that into politics so someone please enlighten me if I'm wrong but If I'm reading things correctly: This is an effort to stop unlimited donations to political parties and to keep private companies from adding their two cents into the election process. What's better for chosing your leader then focussing solely on what the running parties have to say... and trying your darndest to keep one from burying the others strickly because he/she has SO much more money?
This is about informing the electorate. We've already established that public education is a miserable failure most of the time, so, sadly, it falls to sound bites providing information. My theory is that between 50 and 80% of people don't care about a given issue. What was voter turnout for the last presidential year election?
If, say 4 million Americans feel a certain thing is important and the news isn't covering it, why shouldn't they be able to air a commercial raising the issue?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
goose491 0
I see what you're saying... and yes 'tis the downside. But those 4 million Americans have every right to inquire about their concerns. And vote according to how their inquiries are met! There is a difference between 'voicing concerns' and 'putting a party down' on tv.
What I'm reading, is more to prevent people outside the campaing from backing parties during election.
Example: Well, let's use your NRA one: If someone you were voting for (because of his/her stance on gun control) suddenly did changed their stance on Gun Control, the NRA's comercial making reference to that party would not be 'to inform the public of this'... we all know it would be a mud-sling at that party.
And who's to say that a change has to take place? What if one party promises certain things to a large private company if they agree to fund ads of their own? Doesn't that defeat the purpouse of having capped the campaing budget in the first place?
True it's too bad that some, truly objective, parties will be denied their public say but to me, the pros outweigh the cons.
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
What I'm reading, is more to prevent people outside the campaing from backing parties during election.
Example: Well, let's use your NRA one: If someone you were voting for (because of his/her stance on gun control) suddenly did changed their stance on Gun Control, the NRA's comercial making reference to that party would not be 'to inform the public of this'... we all know it would be a mud-sling at that party.
And who's to say that a change has to take place? What if one party promises certain things to a large private company if they agree to fund ads of their own? Doesn't that defeat the purpouse of having capped the campaing budget in the first place?
True it's too bad that some, truly objective, parties will be denied their public say but to me, the pros outweigh the cons.
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
Kennedy 0
QuoteExample: Well, let's use your NRA one: If someone you were voting for (because of his/her stance on gun control) suddenly did changed their stance on Gun Control, the NRA's comercial making reference to that party would not be 'to inform the public of this'... we all know it would be a mud-sling at that party.
Are you saying the NRA would start slinging mud at all republicans? I doubt it. They would want to inform everyone that this person no longer stands for what they believe in. (remember, there are basically only two parties, much as I would prefer otherwise). There are republicans the NRA grades an F and democrats the NRA grades an A.
All this does is exclude the public from political discourse, leaving only the media and the candidate/parties. Nothing keeps them from mud slinging.
QuoteAnd who's to say that a change has to take place? What if one party promises certain things to a large private company if they agree to fund ads of their own? Doesn't that defeat the purpouse of having capped the campaing budget in the first place?
That's already illegal. Has been for some time. From a number of angles.
QuoteTrue it's too bad that some, truly objective, parties will be denied their public say but to me, the pros outweigh the cons.
No one is objective, that's the point of advertising. To my deep sorrow, congress and the supreme court agree with you. I do not. I think political speech by unaffiliated groups should not be restricted. But, like so many other things involving government, they DGAS what I have to say.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
billvon 3,111
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>You convince me of why I should elect you . . .
No problem there, but the constitution protects my right to tell you what I think of that candidate too.
>And they shouldn't either! I don't have access to a television time
> slot to tell the American people why I think they should vote for so
> and so..
Many people don't have access to the net, or cannot afford an ISP account. Should you be restricted in what you can post on the net, so their voices are not drowned out by your more powerful one? (You can reach far more people than they can.)
No one should be restricted in what they can say about a candidate (subject to libel laws, of course) whether they are rich or poor.
>I don't think anyone would prevent you from making public, your
>unbiased research of all parties running for example.
There is now a law that prevents you from doing just that.
No problem there, but the constitution protects my right to tell you what I think of that candidate too.
>And they shouldn't either! I don't have access to a television time
> slot to tell the American people why I think they should vote for so
> and so..
Many people don't have access to the net, or cannot afford an ISP account. Should you be restricted in what you can post on the net, so their voices are not drowned out by your more powerful one? (You can reach far more people than they can.)
No one should be restricted in what they can say about a candidate (subject to libel laws, of course) whether they are rich or poor.
>I don't think anyone would prevent you from making public, your
>unbiased research of all parties running for example.
There is now a law that prevents you from doing just that.
Kennedy 0
QuoteI don't think anyone would prevent you from making public, your unbiased research of all parties running for example.
Even "unbiased" research (if there is such a thing) is prohibited. No ads mentioning a candidate means no ads. Period. Full stop. No exceptions for common sense. We might as well call this another zero tolerance law.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
QuoteQuoteI don't think anyone would prevent you from making public, your unbiased research of all parties running for example.
Even "unbiased" research (if there is such a thing) is prohibited. No ads mentioning a candidate means no ads. Period. Full stop. No exceptions for common sense. We might as well call this another zero tolerance law.
Also means no more candidate summaries of issues from League of Women Voters, etc.
.
By Bruce Fein
The history of constitutional law is the history of faddish intellectual currents. Neither the language nor purpose of the Constitution regularly defeat foolishness fortified by orthodoxy. Thus, a razor-thin 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court last week blessed a staggering assault on the First Amendment's protection of "soft money" speech by political parties, profit and nonprofit corporations, and unions in McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission (Dec. 10, 2003). Time-honored principles celebrating political advocacy and an informed electorate succumbed to voguish myths sermonizing about the alleged evils of money in politics.
Congress enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) amidst a crescendo of carping against a spiraling of "soft money" in federal elections. The term generally refers to corporate or union monies employed for either of two purposes: donations to the Republican or Democrat national political parties; or, independent issue advertising to support or oppose a candidate without expressly urging electoral victory or defeat.
Handsome corporate and union soft money have funded an escalating share of national party spending. In the most recent election cycle, the political parties raised approximately $300 million — 60 percent of their aggregate soft-money funding — from only 800 donors, featuring a minimum $120,000 contribution. The largest corporate donors routinely contribute to both parties. The latter's soft money expenditures, however, were praiseworthy: voter registration, get-out-the-vote campaigns, and issue advertising to support or oppose candidates.
Corporate and union soft money in federal elections have been comparably beneficial. In 2000, approximately $350 million of soft-money issue advertising was attributable to the two major parties and six major interest groups. Bribery laws addressed potential soft money evils by criminalizing the making or receipt of a contribution in exchange for a legislative favor.
Human nature inclines politicians and the public to discover scapegoats for manufactured political ills. A decade ago, term limits were summoned as the panacea for allegedly corrupt and unresponsive legislators. When time discredited that elixir, soft money was indicted as the bete noir of perfect government. The polemics, however, wildly diverged from facts, in borrowing from the crusading Republican Party guru Elihu Root more than a century ago.
As the McConnell majority noted, Root championed legislation to ban corporate contributions to prevent "the great aggregations of wealth from using their corporate funds, directly or indirectly," to elect legislators who would "vote for their protection and the advancement of their interests as against those of the public." The prohibition, according to Root, would "strik[e] at a constantly growing evil which has done more to shake confidence of the plain people of small means of this country than any other practice that has ever obtained since the foundation of our government."
But democracy both contemplates and salutes the right of citizens, either solo or in corporate or union combinations, to devote their resources to elect candidates who echo their political desires. Root's distinction between a selfless "public" legislative interest and selfish private interests is illusory. All individuals and organizations are self-interested in politics, whether princes or paupers, the Chamber of Commerce or the AFL-CIO. That phenomenon of factional division was understood as inevitable in a democracy, as elaborated by James Madison in Federalist 10: "By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community... [To seek elimination of faction is] worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
The Founding Fathers successfully checked faction's mischief by dispersing power among rival interests, not by suppressing advocacy. Notwithstanding Root and his McCain-Feingold disciples, the law has not been captured by aggregations of wealth. The federal government collects approximately 30 percent of income taxes from the top 1 percent of taxpayers. The lion's share of the federal budget transfers income from the most productive and industrious to the less productive and diligent. The nation's most powerful legislative lobby is the AARP (originally, American Association of Retired Persons), not a club of millionaires.
Moreover, neither corporations nor unions enjoy the franchise. Incumbents would lose elections if soft money dictated their actions contrary to the wishes of their voting constituents. The McConnell majority conceded that although soft money may purchase access to officeholders, its ability to influence the course of legislation is dubious. The blunderbuss prohibition in the BCRA was nevertheless justified, the majority maintained, because soft money might tempt officeholders to "decide issues not on the merits or the desires of their constituents, but according to the wishes of those who have made large financial contributions valued by the officeholder."
The Constitution, of course, empowers Congress to buttress an officeholder's inherent self-preservation resistance to soft money temptations by punishing bribery. But to strike directly at the temptation by suppressing political speech mutilates democracy in the name of saving it.
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*