rushmc 23 #1 April 25, 2007 What McCain Fiengold started. http://www.nysun.com/article/53093"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #2 April 25, 2007 QuoteWhat McCain Fiengold started. http://www.nysun.com/article/53093 I may not be the best one to comment on this issue. I think that money does not equal free speech and this notion is why our government is so screwed up. I also think that if ANYone gives ANY politician money then they should be convicted of bribing a public official, and the public official should be convicted of accepting a bribe. $0.02 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #3 April 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhat McCain Fiengold started. http://www.nysun.com/article/53093 I may not be the best one to comment on this issue. I think that money does not equal free speech and this notion is why our government is so screwed up. I also think that if ANYone gives ANY politician money then they should be convicted of bribing a public official, and the public official should be convicted of accepting a bribe. $0.02 That is a different slant on that topic. First off, my first reaction is "I like this" but I believe that this would not be practicle. So, to continue your thoughts, if public money is taken out of the process how do you see it working then?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #4 April 25, 2007 Quote I think that money does not equal free speech and this notion is why our government is so screwed up. I agree. The right to publicly state your opinions or beliefs is different from the right to pile it on higher and heavier, so that your message drowns out all other messages. Plain and simple - advertising/money wins elections. We all know those donations come with strings attached. In essence, it's buying influence. Some might even call it bribery. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #5 April 25, 2007 Quote So, to continue your thoughts, if public money is taken out of the process how do you see it working then? I agree it's a sticky issue. But this may one of the times that I would be ok with letting the government reign in "free speech" if it was done fairly. I heard this the other day and thought it was interesting. Give it a listen. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9692280#email Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #6 April 25, 2007 Quote Quote I think that money does not equal free speech and this notion is why our government is so screwed up. I agree. The right to publicly state your opinions or beliefs is different from the right to pile it on higher and heavier, so that your message drowns out all other messages. Plain and simple - advertising/money wins elections. We all know those donations come with strings attached. In essence, it's buying influence. Some might even call it bribery. I agree with that. Regulation has to be *very* carefully considered though...this is a ridiculously fine line to balance on. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdD 1 #7 April 25, 2007 As far as I know here in Canada, donations to political parties are limited to $1000 per person or business. Regulation in this area is possible while still allowing 'free speech'.Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #8 April 25, 2007 QuoteAs far as I know here in Canada, donations to political parties are limited to $1000 per person or business. Regulation in this area is possible while still allowing 'free speech'. This is not about regulating spending through the parties or the PACs, it is about other groups (i.e. Pro/Anti abortion groups) spending large amounts of unregulated money in support or opposition to a particular candidate while purporting to be addressing a particular issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #9 April 25, 2007 QuoteWhat McCain Fiengold started. The 1st amendment is as least as clear as the 2nd amendmend. McCain-Feingold is a travesty and I'd welcome the new court stomping it down. I don't care if too many of you can't vote without seeing a thousand TV ads. There's no defense for banning the NRA, AARP, or the unions from making statements about candidates X days before the election. These sort of restrictions only increase the incumbency advantage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #10 April 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhat McCain Fiengold started. The 1st amendment is as least as clear as the 2nd amendmend. McCain-Feingold is a travesty and I'd welcome the new court stomping it down. I don't care if too many of you can't vote without seeing a thousand TV ads. There's no defense for banning the NRA, AARP, or the unions from making statements about candidates X days before the election. These sort of restrictions only increase the incumbency advantage. Agreed there is a court case in Colorado right now where a home owners group collected money among themselves to resisit a forced anexation vote. They are in court because they did not register thier group or doners. Seems a bit exesive in the regulation to me. (this is based on a CO law not federal law)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #11 April 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhat McCain Fiengold started. The 1st amendment is as least as clear as the 2nd amendmend. McCain-Feingold is a travesty and I'd welcome the new court stomping it down. I don't care if too many of you can't vote without seeing a thousand TV ads. There's no defense for banning the NRA, AARP, or the unions from making statements about candidates X days before the election. These sort of restrictions only increase the incumbency advantage. How do you feel about restrictions against nudity or swearing on public airwaves? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #12 April 25, 2007 Quote How do you feel about restrictions against nudity or swearing on public airwaves? Blues, Dave Personally I'm all for it! But I don't think it's improper for society to have some standards on 'indecency.' As the Court has determined, pornography is not protected speech, while political speech is always given the widest lattitude due to its importance. No brownies for the FCC's application of this, however. And the attacks on Howard looked very politically motivated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
78RATS 0 #13 April 25, 2007 Quote This is not about regulating spending through the parties or the PACs, it is about other groups (i.e. Pro/Anti abortion groups) spending large amounts of unregulated money in support or opposition to a particular candidate while purporting to be addressing a particular issue. or 501(c)(3)'s funnelling PILES of SECRET corporate money into attack ads that merely avoid the "vote for/vote against" language. Issue Ads have become a joke for the most part. You got something to say, say it. But don't be afraid to identify yourself. "paid for by Enron" Rat for Life - Fly till I die When them stupid ass bitches ask why Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
