Full Version: 1st amendment takes another hit
Key Parts of Campaign Finance Law Upheld
Yesterday, key parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform were upheld by the USSC. Although the high court left the door open, they ruled that the Congress could legally restrict political speech in an effort to root out corruption or even the appearance of corruption.
I know some may disagree, but lobbying groups such as the NRA, NAACP, or any other group is simply a collection of citizens with a common interest on an issue or a series of issues. Limiting the speech rights of these groups ultimately limits the speech rights of the members of those groups.
The problem I have is that you can no longer name names in "issue ads".
Interest Group Ads Can't Name Candidates
The editors at the NY Times are happy with the decision:
A Campaign Finance Triumph
Why is an issue ad a "sham" if it supports one candidate over another? Clearly, if both candidates agreed on an issue, there would be no issue. It is simply logical that a group will support the candidate that supports their side of an issue. The two are inseparable.
So, the question for debate here is:
Given this Supreme Court ruling (essentially that the Congress can abridge free speech in the effort to reduce "corruption"), has the 1st Amendment been weakened? Does getting "soft money" out of politics over-ride all other considerations?
Yesterday, key parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform were upheld by the USSC. Although the high court left the door open, they ruled that the Congress could legally restrict political speech in an effort to root out corruption or even the appearance of corruption.
QUOTE
The court ruled 5-4 that rooting out corruption, or even the appearance of it, justifies limitations on the free speech and free spending of contributors, candidates and political parties. Justices also divided 5-4 to uphold the federal campaign law's restrictions on political advertising in the weeks before an election.
I know some may disagree, but lobbying groups such as the NRA, NAACP, or any other group is simply a collection of citizens with a common interest on an issue or a series of issues. Limiting the speech rights of these groups ultimately limits the speech rights of the members of those groups.
The problem I have is that you can no longer name names in "issue ads".
Interest Group Ads Can't Name Candidates
QUOTE
Abortion rights, environmental and other lobbying groups running ads for or against President Bush (news - web sites) or any of his Democratic rivals now have a choice to make: Either remove the candidate's name or pull the commercial from the airwaves.
The campaign finance law that the Supreme Court upheld Wednesday bans ads that mention candidates for federal office within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election if they are paid for with "soft money."
The huge, unlimited donations from corporations, unions and individuals typically are used to broadcast so-called "issue ads," which critics say are really intended to sway voters just before an election and often include sharp critiques of candidates.
The restrictions kick in Sunday, 30 days before the District of Columbia's nonbinding presidential primary. They next take effect Dec. 20 in Iowa, which holds its caucuses Jan. 19, and Dec. 28 in New Hampshire, where the primary is Jan. 27. They also apply to House and Senate races.
The campaign finance law that the Supreme Court upheld Wednesday bans ads that mention candidates for federal office within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election if they are paid for with "soft money."
The huge, unlimited donations from corporations, unions and individuals typically are used to broadcast so-called "issue ads," which critics say are really intended to sway voters just before an election and often include sharp critiques of candidates.
The restrictions kick in Sunday, 30 days before the District of Columbia's nonbinding presidential primary. They next take effect Dec. 20 in Iowa, which holds its caucuses Jan. 19, and Dec. 28 in New Hampshire, where the primary is Jan. 27. They also apply to House and Senate races.
The editors at the NY Times are happy with the decision:
A Campaign Finance Triumph
QUOTE
he Supreme Court delivered a stunning victory for political reform yesterday, upholding the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law virtually in its entirety. The court rejected claims that the law violates the First Amendment, making it clear that Congress has broad authority in acting against the corrupting power of money in politics. The ruling is cause for celebration, but it should also spur Congress to do more to clean up our political system.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, widely known as McCain-Feingold, closed two gaping loopholes in campaign finance law. One was "soft money," the unlimited, and often very sizable, contributions to political parties that were then funneled into federal campaigns. The other concerned sham "issue ads," commercials run just before an election that were unregulated because they purported to be about political issues but were actually intended to help particular candidates.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, widely known as McCain-Feingold, closed two gaping loopholes in campaign finance law. One was "soft money," the unlimited, and often very sizable, contributions to political parties that were then funneled into federal campaigns. The other concerned sham "issue ads," commercials run just before an election that were unregulated because they purported to be about political issues but were actually intended to help particular candidates.
Why is an issue ad a "sham" if it supports one candidate over another? Clearly, if both candidates agreed on an issue, there would be no issue. It is simply logical that a group will support the candidate that supports their side of an issue. The two are inseparable.
So, the question for debate here is:
Given this Supreme Court ruling (essentially that the Congress can abridge free speech in the effort to reduce "corruption"), has the 1st Amendment been weakened? Does getting "soft money" out of politics over-ride all other considerations?
I think this law will be of benefit in the long run. I don't see how it has weakened the First Amendment at all. No one is being prohibited from speaking out,
The law does nothing to prohibit any ads. Nobody's speech is being stopped here. The Supreme Court, in my opinion, finally got it right. Money is not speech. Money is merely a medium of trade. And that medium can be regulated to a certain degree.
What the law says is you can air on TV and radio any ads devoted to the discussion of an issue, without mentioning a federal candidate. But if you are broadcasting an ad within 60 days of the election (30 days in the case of primaries) and the ad features or names a federal candidate, then it has to be paid for with money subject to federal election laws.
You can't use corporate or labor union money from the general treasuries of such entities. These kinds of ads will now have to be funded by political action committees, the political arms of corporations, and unions whose funding is restricted and whose donors must be disclosed. How is disclosing who gave how much a bad thing? And how does forcing disclosure limit anyone's speech? The law does not prohibit flyers or pamphlets from being mailed out, or from newspaper ads being run.
The previous law restricted funding only for advertising that expressly called for the election or defeat of a candidate, and it did not regulate ads that merely discussed a candidate's position on the issues. The court said the law was easily sidestepped by corporations and unions who produced thinly veiled campaign ads by organizations that identified themselves as "Citizens for Better Medicare,'' but were actually a group of drug manufacturers, who had no requirements to disclose their financial interest, or the even the fact that they were the only "citizens" for "better medicare". Better for whom? All the citizens, or just those few citizens that owned said undisclosed pharmaceutical companies?
Even efforts by political parties to register voters, identify supporters and urge them to the polls were seen as opportunities for corruption if large donors were allowed to pay for such projects as a way of currying favor with elected officials.
American democracy and political campaigns will not be damaged by eliminating the corrupting influence of soft money. Soft money creates a system of legalized bribery in which the major parties and high profile candidates regularly extort large corporate donors, who often feel compelled to give to both sides, either to win influence or avoid retaliation in Congress.
There may still be problems with campaign finance, but I think this goes a long way to correcting the biggest loopholes. It adds accountablility and transparency to the donation process, and forces "issue ads" to really be about issues, instead of about a particular candidate.
The law does nothing to prohibit any ads. Nobody's speech is being stopped here. The Supreme Court, in my opinion, finally got it right. Money is not speech. Money is merely a medium of trade. And that medium can be regulated to a certain degree.
What the law says is you can air on TV and radio any ads devoted to the discussion of an issue, without mentioning a federal candidate. But if you are broadcasting an ad within 60 days of the election (30 days in the case of primaries) and the ad features or names a federal candidate, then it has to be paid for with money subject to federal election laws.
You can't use corporate or labor union money from the general treasuries of such entities. These kinds of ads will now have to be funded by political action committees, the political arms of corporations, and unions whose funding is restricted and whose donors must be disclosed. How is disclosing who gave how much a bad thing? And how does forcing disclosure limit anyone's speech? The law does not prohibit flyers or pamphlets from being mailed out, or from newspaper ads being run.
The previous law restricted funding only for advertising that expressly called for the election or defeat of a candidate, and it did not regulate ads that merely discussed a candidate's position on the issues. The court said the law was easily sidestepped by corporations and unions who produced thinly veiled campaign ads by organizations that identified themselves as "Citizens for Better Medicare,'' but were actually a group of drug manufacturers, who had no requirements to disclose their financial interest, or the even the fact that they were the only "citizens" for "better medicare". Better for whom? All the citizens, or just those few citizens that owned said undisclosed pharmaceutical companies?
Even efforts by political parties to register voters, identify supporters and urge them to the polls were seen as opportunities for corruption if large donors were allowed to pay for such projects as a way of currying favor with elected officials.
American democracy and political campaigns will not be damaged by eliminating the corrupting influence of soft money. Soft money creates a system of legalized bribery in which the major parties and high profile candidates regularly extort large corporate donors, who often feel compelled to give to both sides, either to win influence or avoid retaliation in Congress.
There may still be problems with campaign finance, but I think this goes a long way to correcting the biggest loopholes. It adds accountablility and transparency to the donation process, and forces "issue ads" to really be about issues, instead of about a particular candidate.
Amlord: This isn't right, looks like by my count the Supreme Court is 0 for 2 preserving the Constitution lately [AA, and now this]. This violates the lobbyists' rights to be heard, which, of course violates the first amendment of the Constitution.
CP
CP
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Dec 11 2003, 12:26 PM)
Amlord: This isn't right, looks like by my count the Supreme Court is 0 for 2 preserving the Constitution lately [AA, and now this]. This violates the lobbyists' rights to be heard, which, of course violates the first amendment of the Constitution.
CP
CP
How exactly does it "violate the lobbyists' rights to be heard?" They can still speak up and say what they like, if I'm not mistaken. Particularly on the money issue... one could view this decision as a step in the direction of correcting the abuse of the constitution granted corporations in the Santa Clara case, the interpretation of which began the idea that dollars are synonymous with speech.
The problem is, it doesn't go far enough. I urge you to look at this organization. They have a lot of good information, as well as some very good reasoning to support more transparent, publicly financed elections.
This is a country of almost 300 million people, and yet the only people who even have a chance at becoming president are from the top couple percent (financially) of the population. This decision, sadly, doesn't really change that. You would think that in a country where we supposedly believe in a government of, for, and by the people, we would have some interest in seeing the best people in office, not merely the richest.
Can anyone find a link giving the Court's opinions?
QUOTE(Amlord @ Dec 11 2003, 09:13 AM)
I know some may disagree, but lobbying groups such as the NRA, NAACP, or any other group is simply a collection of citizens with a common interest on an issue or a series of issues. Limiting the speech rights of these groups ultimately limits the speech rights of the members of those groups.
Why is an issue ad a "sham" if it supports one candidate over another? Clearly, if both candidates agreed on an issue, there would be no issue. It is simply logical that a group will support the candidate that supports their side of an issue. The two are inseparable.
So, the question for debate here is:
Given this Supreme Court ruling (essentially that the Congress can abridge free speech in the effort to reduce "corruption"), has the 1st Amendment been weakened? Does getting "soft money" out of politics over-ride all other considerations?
I honestly don't believe the first amendment has been abridged in any way. You asked rhetorically why issue ads are "sham" ads to some. The problem as I understand it, is that you have front-groups creating dummy public interest groups to slander a candidate. "Citizens for the environment" might be a fictitious group made up by the oil interests, or "Citizens for decent healthcare" might be made up of Big pharma, which wants to keep their high prices and oppose anything to the contrary. The point?-these "sham" groups and their "sham" ads mislead the people on who they are, and that is not what the first amendment was intended to protect. The right to protect the electoral process is of greater importance than the "free-speech" rights of sham group that is using an amendment designed to protect the right of people.
Yes, many people donate money to groups to try and have their voices heard. If you are one who believes in gun rights, you donate to the NRA in the hopes that your views will get their way in D.C. Even with these restrictions, the right of speech is not restricted. These groups can still lobby elected representatives. Donations can still be made. Yes, the amount of money and limit on commercials is present, but you still have that right to a degree. No right is absolute.
I view this issue not as a free speech issue, but rather, as one dealing with corruption. No, corruption will not end in Washington with the passage of this bill, but we do need to keep some level of dignity and restraint upon those who have more free speech rights(through money) than do other citizens.
Doesn't this have something to do with the 60-day window prior to the actual election were the only entities allowed to voice an opinion (for lack of a better term) about a candidate are media organizations? Advocacy groups who are not media outlets are silenced.
So what happens if the New York Times endorses a Democratic Candidate for President? Will they use that 60-day window to build up their candidate and trash the opposition?
I believe this is why the NRA is filing with the FCC? to become a media outlet.
At least that's my understanding.
So what happens if the New York Times endorses a Democratic Candidate for President? Will they use that 60-day window to build up their candidate and trash the opposition?
I believe this is why the NRA is filing with the FCC? to become a media outlet.
At least that's my understanding.
Link to some excerpts: Excerpts From Supreme Court Ruling on McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law
The problem here is that it is not the government's duty to divine the intention of any particular political viewpoint.
If I call my group "Americans for Free Drugs" but don't actually advocate free drugs, it should be none of the government's concern. That isn't grounds for disallowing my viewpoint to be heard.
This decision greatly benefits incumbents. In order to defeat an incumbent, you need to impress upon voters the failings of the incumbent. What this bill does is limit what a third-party group can say about a candidate in the months leading up to an election. Does it completely disallow such speech? No, it does not. It does, however, place limits on it.
This bill also gives power to media outlets, who can, through selective use of their editorializing, influence elections. It strikes me as odd that media outlets are not regulated in the same manner as other private groups.
What this boils down to is whether or not groups of people should have a voice in campaigns as those campaigns near the election. Since my position is that these groups are made up of Constitutionally protected individuals then do, indeed, also have those same rights as a group.
Of course, there are already loopholes which allow the same practices to continue.
From Justice Scalia's dissent:
(emphasis mine)
The problem here is that it is not the government's duty to divine the intention of any particular political viewpoint.
If I call my group "Americans for Free Drugs" but don't actually advocate free drugs, it should be none of the government's concern. That isn't grounds for disallowing my viewpoint to be heard.
This decision greatly benefits incumbents. In order to defeat an incumbent, you need to impress upon voters the failings of the incumbent. What this bill does is limit what a third-party group can say about a candidate in the months leading up to an election. Does it completely disallow such speech? No, it does not. It does, however, place limits on it.
This bill also gives power to media outlets, who can, through selective use of their editorializing, influence elections. It strikes me as odd that media outlets are not regulated in the same manner as other private groups.
What this boils down to is whether or not groups of people should have a voice in campaigns as those campaigns near the election. Since my position is that these groups are made up of Constitutionally protected individuals then do, indeed, also have those same rights as a group.
Of course, there are already loopholes which allow the same practices to continue.
From Justice Scalia's dissent:
QUOTE
This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, and sexually explicit cable programming would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government. For that is what the most offensive provisions of this legislation are all about. We are governed by Congress, and this legislation prohibits the criticism of members of Congress by those entities most capable of giving such criticism loud voice: national political parties and corporations, both of the commercial and the not-for-profit sort. It forbids pre-election criticism of incumbents by corporations, even not-for-profit corporations, by use of their general funds; and forbids national-party use of "soft" money to fund "issue ads" that incumbents find so offensive.
But, it is argued, quite apart from its effect upon the electorate, corporate speech in the form of contributions to the candidate's campaign, or even in the form of independent expenditures supporting the candidate, engenders an obligation which is later paid in the form of greater access to the officeholder, or indeed in the form of votes on particular bills. Any quid-pro-quo agreement for votes would of course violate criminal law, and actual payoff votes have not even been claimed by those favoring the restrictions on corporate speech. It cannot be denied, however, that corporate (like noncorporate) allies will have greater access to the officeholder, and that he will tend to favor the same causes as those who support him (which is usually why they supported him). That is the nature of politics — if not indeed human nature — and how this can properly be considered "corruption" (or "the appearance of corruption") with regard to corporate allies and not with regard to other allies is beyond me. If the Bill of Rights had intended an exception to the freedom of speech in order to combat this malign proclivity of the officeholder to agree with those who agree with him, and to speak more with his supporters than his opponents, it would surely have said so. It did not do so, I think, because the juice is not worth the squeeze.
But, it is argued, quite apart from its effect upon the electorate, corporate speech in the form of contributions to the candidate's campaign, or even in the form of independent expenditures supporting the candidate, engenders an obligation which is later paid in the form of greater access to the officeholder, or indeed in the form of votes on particular bills. Any quid-pro-quo agreement for votes would of course violate criminal law, and actual payoff votes have not even been claimed by those favoring the restrictions on corporate speech. It cannot be denied, however, that corporate (like noncorporate) allies will have greater access to the officeholder, and that he will tend to favor the same causes as those who support him (which is usually why they supported him). That is the nature of politics — if not indeed human nature — and how this can properly be considered "corruption" (or "the appearance of corruption") with regard to corporate allies and not with regard to other allies is beyond me. If the Bill of Rights had intended an exception to the freedom of speech in order to combat this malign proclivity of the officeholder to agree with those who agree with him, and to speak more with his supporters than his opponents, it would surely have said so. It did not do so, I think, because the juice is not worth the squeeze.
(emphasis mine)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Dec 11 2003, 10:13 AM)
I know some may disagree, but lobbying groups such as the NRA, NAACP, or any other group is simply a collection of citizens with a common interest on an issue or a series of issues. Limiting the speech rights of these groups ultimately limits the speech rights of the members of those groups.
Speech has not been limited, money is not speech. Everyone has the same amount of free speech, we don't all have the same amount of money.
QUOTE(Grendel72 @ Dec 12 2003, 02:46 PM)
Speech has not been limited, money is not speech. Everyone has the same amount of free speech, we don't all have the same amount of money.
OK, let's take this statement as a true one...
So, can I as Joe Citizen put an ad on TV bashing Bush within 60 days of the next election?
Answer: no, I can't.
Is this free speech?
QUOTE(Amlord @ Dec 12 2003, 02:54 PM)
QUOTE(Grendel72 @ Dec 12 2003, 02:46 PM)
Speech has not been limited, money is not speech. Everyone has the same amount of free speech, we don't all have the same amount of money.
OK, let's take this statement as a true one...
So, can I as Joe Citizen put an ad on TV bashing Bush within 60 days of the next election?
Answer: no, I can't.
Is this free speech?
You also can't yell "fire" in a movie theater.
You can't protest about the president in his presence. They'll arrest you for "disturbing the peace" or some other trumped-up charge.
Not all speech is unregulated.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Dec 12 2003, 02:54 PM)
OK, let's take this statement as a true one...
So, can I as Joe Citizen put an ad on TV bashing Bush within 60 days of the next election?
Answer: no, I can't.
Is this free speech?
So, can I as Joe Citizen put an ad on TV bashing Bush within 60 days of the next election?
Answer: no, I can't.
Is this free speech?
You can speak in the public sphere same as anyone else. Why should the opinions of the wealthy be broadcast when the rest of us aren't?
Money mucks up the marketplace of ideas, an idea should flourish or perish based on it's merits, not how much money it's proponents have.
The practical result of the system we currently have is that the people have very little voice in politics, all we get to do is choose between bought and paid for whores come election time.
Money corrupts politics and big money corrupts absolutely.
Case in point: We just finished an election in my city. In the school board race there were four incumbents running for election and another four people challenging them. One of the incumebents was a fiesty type who delighted in revealing the inner workings, backdoor deals and smoke-filled rooms scams of the school system and the board.
The three other incumbents ran as a team and recruited a fourth person to join them (and defeat the fourth incumbent). This team was made up of two Democrats and two Republicans. That was odd, but what was even weirder was they raised $350,000 for a parttime job that pays $80 a meeting.
But the school board oversees a $600 million budget and just got a levy passed to build and refurbish schools. A LOT of contractors want in on some of that money.
The result? Well, what would you expect when you're spending over a quarter of a million dollars to beat ONE guy? They had all the TV ads, the radio commercials, the billboards, yard signs, mailing lists and organization they needed. On Election Night they were celebrating at one of the most upscale and trendy restaurants in town. The now-defeated school board member had KFC and two-liters of Coke in his living room watching the returns on the televison.
Hooray for the Supreme Court. Money talks, but it isn't free speech. It just buys you politicians to do your bidding.
Case in point: We just finished an election in my city. In the school board race there were four incumbents running for election and another four people challenging them. One of the incumebents was a fiesty type who delighted in revealing the inner workings, backdoor deals and smoke-filled rooms scams of the school system and the board.
The three other incumbents ran as a team and recruited a fourth person to join them (and defeat the fourth incumbent). This team was made up of two Democrats and two Republicans. That was odd, but what was even weirder was they raised $350,000 for a parttime job that pays $80 a meeting.
But the school board oversees a $600 million budget and just got a levy passed to build and refurbish schools. A LOT of contractors want in on some of that money.
The result? Well, what would you expect when you're spending over a quarter of a million dollars to beat ONE guy? They had all the TV ads, the radio commercials, the billboards, yard signs, mailing lists and organization they needed. On Election Night they were celebrating at one of the most upscale and trendy restaurants in town. The now-defeated school board member had KFC and two-liters of Coke in his living room watching the returns on the televison.
Hooray for the Supreme Court. Money talks, but it isn't free speech. It just buys you politicians to do your bidding.
QUOTE(Grendel72 @ Dec 12 2003, 03:20 PM)
You can speak in the public sphere same as anyone else.
Not in the media before an election, you can't.
Why wouldn't we allow (for example) a group of 1,000 Joe Citizens to pitch in $10 apiece to protest Bush's War in Iraq?
I will refer again to Scalia's comments:
QUOTE
It cannot be denied, however, that corporate (like noncorporate) allies will have greater access to the officeholder, and that he will tend to favor the same causes as those who support him (which is usually why they supported him). That is the nature of politics — if not indeed human nature — and how this can properly be considered "corruption" (or "the appearance of corruption") with regard to corporate allies and not with regard to other allies is beyond me.
If there is real corruption (i.e. vote buying) prosecute.
But don't limit freedom of political speech for the appearance of impropriety.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Dec 12 2003, 05:00 PM)
Why wouldn't we allow (for example) a group of 1,000 Joe Citizens to pitch in $10 apiece to protest Bush's War in Iraq?
When speech is bought and sold it is not 'free speech'.
We all, no matter our political positions have the same access to speech, to pen and paper. We don't all have access to loads of cash.
QUOTE
But don't limit freedom of political speech for the appearance of impropriety.
Speech isn't being limited, spending is. You are free to say whatever you want.
I could be wrong, but my understanding was that you could still speak out against a candidate, just not in an ad. If I am correct, than what' the problem? Free speech isn't being violated.
However, if I am wrong, then I would say that I cannot agree with not letting someone get on their "soapbox".
However, if I am wrong, then I would say that I cannot agree with not letting someone get on their "soapbox".
QUOTE(Grendel72 @ Dec 12 2003, 05:42 PM)
QUOTE
But don't limit freedom of political speech for the appearance of impropriety.
Speech isn't being limited, spending is. You are free to say whatever you want. Even if the ads are free you can't air them. McCain/ Feingold protects incumbants and the two party system. The NAACP and the NRA are how little guys, who have $25 to spare, get their opinions across. The purpose of the 1st amendment was to protect political speech, not child porn.
It takes money to get yourself heard, all these restrictions do is is insure the two major parties have less speech in their disfavor.
Attempt at bypassing profanity filter removed. - Jaime
I would agree with those who have argued that this is not, directly, a free speech issue. In most states, you can legally ask someone for sex, but you cannot offer that person money at the same time, regardless of whether or not you imply a quid-pro-quo arrangement. If Scalia's argument is correct and money equals free speech, he should also support implicit prostitution as a first amendment right (I'm sure many people already do). "I happen to be giving money to this stranger who happens to be having sex with me," isn't much different from political contributions. Similarly, funding terrorists would be legal. If we can publicly condone terrorists under free speech, we should be allowed to give them money. Even if money should equal speech, under the current laws, it doesn't.
Furthermore, the bill only applies to "electioneering communications," which it defines as:
Broacast, cable and satellite communications all travel through publicly owned forums that are regulated out of necessity. That is, without the FCC, I could broadcast white noise over the entire FM spectrum and make radio completely unusable.
However, aside from minimal protections, I really don't want the government to be heavily regulating these things because I think they're too important to free speech. If I want to include campaign material on my website, for which I pay $10,001 to keep online, I should be allowed to do so. Because a website or TV ad costs more based on the number of people who see it, limiting the amount we can spend limits the size of our audience. In fact, that's the only point in controlling "coordinated electioneering communications expenditures" at all. Yes, they are only limiting my expenditures, but the entire purpose of doing so is to limit my voice. This law tiptoes around the first amendment while going completely against its spirit.
This is not to say that I doubt campaign contributions corrupt the government, but I see this particular brand of finance reform as being dangerous. It's a lose/lose situation, with one side being a bit... loseier.
I agree that it's not an egalitarian process, but I'm not sure this argument, by itself, is enough. Sure, the wealthy can buy themselves more speech and influence, but would you regulate how much money they can spend on liquor so that everyone is equal under the 21st amendment as well? Wealthy people can do a lot of things other people can't.
Furthermore, the bill only applies to "electioneering communications," which it defines as:
QUOTE
A) IN GENERAL- The term `electioneering communication' means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which--
i) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office;
ii) is made within--
I) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for such Federal office; or
II) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for such Federal office; and
iii) is made to an audience that includes members of the electorate for such election, convention, or caucus.
B ) EXCEPTIONS- The term `electioneering communication' does not include--
i) a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate; or
ii) a communication which constitutes an expenditure or an independent expenditure under this Act.
i) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office;
ii) is made within--
I) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for such Federal office; or
II) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for such Federal office; and
iii) is made to an audience that includes members of the electorate for such election, convention, or caucus.
B ) EXCEPTIONS- The term `electioneering communication' does not include--
i) a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate; or
ii) a communication which constitutes an expenditure or an independent expenditure under this Act.
Broacast, cable and satellite communications all travel through publicly owned forums that are regulated out of necessity. That is, without the FCC, I could broadcast white noise over the entire FM spectrum and make radio completely unusable.
However, aside from minimal protections, I really don't want the government to be heavily regulating these things because I think they're too important to free speech. If I want to include campaign material on my website, for which I pay $10,001 to keep online, I should be allowed to do so. Because a website or TV ad costs more based on the number of people who see it, limiting the amount we can spend limits the size of our audience. In fact, that's the only point in controlling "coordinated electioneering communications expenditures" at all. Yes, they are only limiting my expenditures, but the entire purpose of doing so is to limit my voice. This law tiptoes around the first amendment while going completely against its spirit.
This is not to say that I doubt campaign contributions corrupt the government, but I see this particular brand of finance reform as being dangerous. It's a lose/lose situation, with one side being a bit... loseier.
QUOTE(Grendel72 @ Dec 12 2003 @ 08:20 PM)
Why should the opinions of the wealthy be broadcast when the rest of us aren't?
I agree that it's not an egalitarian process, but I'm not sure this argument, by itself, is enough. Sure, the wealthy can buy themselves more speech and influence, but would you regulate how much money they can spend on liquor so that everyone is equal under the 21st amendment as well? Wealthy people can do a lot of things other people can't.
I think it is a severe blow to the process. Money in and by itself does NOT cause corruption. Someone has to actually do the bad thing. This whole notion of money being the root of all evil is assinine and really a poor decision by SCOTUS. The idea that because you have money you cannot be heard is stupid. I would WANT to hear from a person like that...not give equal billing and time to some schmuck that doesn't have a grasp on the world or have their life together. This is a very sad thing indeed.
cusbilla
cusbilla
Folks, Amlord hit the nail on the head. If a group of my friends wants to scrap some money together to make a pro-Bush, not an anti-Dean, just a pro-Bush commerical on the local TV station within 60 days of the election, we can't...We can't voice our opinion...that is unConstitutional.
CP
CP
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Dec 14 2003, 09:45 AM)
Folks, Amlord hit the nail on the head. If a group of my friends wants to scrap some money together to make a pro-Bush, not an anti-Dean, just a pro-Bush commerical on the local TV station within 60 days of the election, we can't...We can't voice our opinion...that is unConstitutional.
CP
CP
Of course you can voice your opinion. You just can't do it as a paid-for ad.
Just like you can yell "Fire" all you want; you just can't do it in a movie theater unless there's really a fire.
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Dec 14 2003, 09:45 AM)
Folks, Amlord hit the nail on the head. If a group of my friends wants to scrap some money together to make a pro-Bush, not an anti-Dean, just a pro-Bush commerical on the local TV station within 60 days of the election, we can't...We can't voice our opinion...that is unConstitutional.
CP
CP
No, actually Amlord (and you) missed the nail by a fair margin.
You and your friends are indeed allowed to make either a Pro-Bush (or anti-Dean) commercial, and have it aired in the 60 days prior to an election. But you will have to do one of two things:
1. If it's just you, (or you and a few friends), you would have to register the ad as an “independent expenditure" ad, meet disclosure requirements, and TV stations running the ads would have to disclose the details of the ad buy in their public files, so that anyone asking could determine the true sponsorship of the ad.
2. If it's an organization, such as your corporation, you cannot use general revenues to fund the ad. You would have to establish a "PAC" and fund it strictly through donations. Again, these donations are restricted in amount, and you must disclose the contributors and amounts they gave. But these types of organizations are also permitted to fund candidate ads, as long as the contribution and disclosure rules are followed.
If the ad is indeed, truly an "issue ad", with no mention of a political candidate pro or con, you can carry on as you always have. A couple of examples:
1. Republicans for Clean Air: These ads, which supported Bush and attacked Sen. John McCain, were aired during the 2000 presidential primaries by a front group for two Texas millionaires, Sam and Charles Wyly.
In order for them to air such ads under the new law, the Wyly brothers would not be allowed to hide behind such a group. They would still be able to run the ads as individuals sponsoring an “independent expenditure” campaign. They would have to meet disclosure requirements, and TV stations running the ads would have to disclose the details of the ad buy in their public files.
2. Health Insurance Association of America’s “Harry and Louise” ads. This 1993 ad campaign is credited with helping to defeat the Clinton administration’s health care reform proposal. The $15 million HIAA ad campaign would have been virtually unaffected by McCain-Feingold. That’s because the ads did not mention a candidate and did not air in the weeks before an election. The ads could have continued to run during the late election cycle, had the ads been paid for by a PAC, with financial disclosure in place, because they did not advocate one candidate over another.
Also, under the Senate bill, interest groups would still be free to sponsor electioneering ads that focus on a particular candidate and air during the campaign season. But such ads would have to be paid for by regulated funds, subject to contribution limits that already apply to their political action committees.
Outside the campaign season, groups would still be free to run issue ads with unregulated money.
So, of course you can voice your opinion, even inside the 60 and 30 day periods. You just have to do it inside a registered political action committee (hard money, not soft) and be willing to do it knowing that your PAC has limitations on what they are allowed to accept from you in the form of donations, and they have to disclose that you were one of the people donating to them. Consequently, you can also finance the commercial yourself, but you cannot do it anonymously.
What's unconstitutional about any of that?
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Dec 14 2003, 11:48 AM)
So, of course you can voice your opinion, even inside the 60 and 30 day periods. You just have to do it inside a registered political action committee (hard money, not soft) and be willing to do it knowing that your PAC has limitations on what they are allowed to accept from you in the form of donations, and they have to disclose that you were one of the people donating to them. Consequently, you can also finance the commercial yourself, but you cannot do it anonymously.
What's unconstitutional about any of that?
What's unconstitutional about any of that?
So, your opinion is that "regulating" free speech does not equate to "restricting" free speech?
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
One concept I find funny is that "issue" ads can't reference a candidate. What's the purpose of the ad except to illustrate where each candidate stands in regards to your issue?
Running an ad advocating gay rights (for instance) without saying where each of the candidate's stands is meaningless, is it not?
QUOTE(Amlord @ Dec 15 2003, 09:25 AM)
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Dec 14 2003, 11:48 AM)
So, of course you can voice your opinion, even inside the 60 and 30 day periods. You just have to do it inside a registered political action committee (hard money, not soft) and be willing to do it knowing that your PAC has limitations on what they are allowed to accept from you in the form of donations, and they have to disclose that you were one of the people donating to them. Consequently, you can also finance the commercial yourself, but you cannot do it anonymously.
What's unconstitutional about any of that?
What's unconstitutional about any of that?
So, your opinion is that "regulating" free speech does not equate to "restricting" free speech?
Yes, my opinion is that regulating how money for my ad is raised and having to disclose my (or my company's) name as being involved in paying for an ad does not restrict my freedom to say what I want to say, and when I say it.
As long as I follows those two basic rules, I can run ads of any kind right up until election day.
That's all this law really does. It forces companies and other organizations like unions to set up a separate political account for voluntary donations only. They can no longer force union members for example, to contribute involuntarily through the use of their union dues for an issue they don't believe in. Those that do believe in it are still free to donate to the ad, through the political action account.
It also forces a group of companies (like pharmaceuticals) to disclose their involvement with a particular ad stance. They can no longer hide behind a phony, made up name like "Americans for Better Healthcare".
As a voter who wants to be informed, don't I have a right to know who is pushing an agenda on me? And if you as a company, are not willing to disclose your involvement in a particular issue, and how it is advertised, what does that say about you?
Anyway, I repeat my question. What about either of these things is unconstitutional? They are not stopping you from saying what you want, when you want. They are merely saying that in order to do this, you must say how you got the money you used, and who gave it to you. This restricts your right to speak how?
QUOTE
One concept I find funny is that "issue" ads can't reference a candidate. What's the purpose of the ad except to illustrate where each candidate stands in regards to your issue?
Running an ad advocating gay rights (for instance) without saying where each of the candidate's stands is meaningless, is it not?
Running an ad advocating gay rights (for instance) without saying where each of the candidate's stands is meaningless, is it not?
Not at all. Who is for a particular issue and who is against it, can still be addressed in the "candidate advocacy" ads, where they properly belong, in terms of convincing voters that your guy is the right choice.
Let's take your example of gay rights for a minute. Suppose there is a bill coming out of the house, not yet really debated, and not voted on, that would guarantee gays the right to marry, and it's an election year.
This issue could certainly be discussed in "issue ads", both pro and con, without ever bringing up a a particular candidate.
For example: "Isn't it time that gays had the same rights as the rest of America? Call your congresman, and tell him to vote "yes" on HR5555."
Or: "Gay marriage. Good for America, or just good for the divorce attorneys? Call your congressman, and tell him to vote "no" on HR5555."
But, add a candidtate's picture to either of these tag lines, and hint that they are for one of the given positions, and it is no longer an "issue ad", it's a candidate ad.
But you don't need to show where a candidate stands on a given issue, to debate whether the issue is good or bad for the country to begin with. So, to answer your question, an issue ad without candidate positions is not meaningless, at least at that point.
They want you to actually think about the issue involved, and not vote for something just because Senator Smith is attached to it, and he seemed like such a nice guy when you met him at last month's Rotary Club breakfast. See the difference? If Senator Smith is for gay marriage, let him say so himself, in his own ad, and let the issues involved speak for themselves.
If we buy into the notion that the right of lobbying groups and special interest groups are "restricted" and thus, are unconstitutional-then what are we to do about the 99.8% of us who have less free speech? Yes, groups of small donors compromise of many groups like the NRA. At the same time, it reeks of corruption when money guarantees donors access. If the pharmaceutical industry takes senators golfing and pays for lavish gifts, who is to say that you're views expressed in a letter have equal weight?
Yet more evidence of corruption:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer
Yet more evidence of corruption:
QUOTE
The Federal Election Commission has determined that Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's unsuccessful 2000 Senate reelection campaign violated election laws by accepting $110,000 in illegal contributions from a committee Ashcroft had established to explore running for president.
In documents released yesterday by the FEC, Garrett M. Lott, treasurer for the two Ashcroft committees, the Spirit of America PAC and Ashcroft 2000, agreed to pay a $37,000 fine for at least four violations of federal campaign law. Lott agreed "not to contest" the charges.
In documents released yesterday by the FEC, Garrett M. Lott, treasurer for the two Ashcroft committees, the Spirit of America PAC and Ashcroft 2000, agreed to pay a $37,000 fine for at least four violations of federal campaign law. Lott agreed "not to contest" the charges.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Dec 15 2003, 03:41 PM)
Yes, my opinion is that regulating how money for my ad is raised and having to disclose my (or my company's) name as being involved in paying for an ad does not restrict my freedom to say what I want to say, and when I say it.
As long as I follows those two basic rules, I can run ads of any kind right up until election day.
As long as I follows those two basic rules, I can run ads of any kind right up until election day.
The bill is pretty tricky to understand, but I don't think your comments are %100 accurate. Whether or not your ad is considered an "independent expenditure" or "coordinated expenditure" (and thus regulated) is not only based on funding, but also on content.
QUOTE
`(C ) `Coordinated activity' means anything of value provided by a person in connection with a Federal candidate's election who is or previously has been within the same election cycle acting in coordination with that candidate, or an agent of that candidate on any campaign activity in connection with a Federal election in which such candidate seeks nomination or election to Federal office (regardless of whether the value being provided is in the form of a communication that expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate) and includes any of the following:
`(i) A payment made by a person in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, at the request or suggestion of, or pursuant to any general or particular understanding with a candidate, the candidate's authorized committee, the political party of the candidate, or an agent acting on behalf of a candidate, authorized committee, or the political party of the candidate.
`(ii) A payment made by a person for the production, dissemination, distribution, or republication, in whole or in part, of any broadcast or any written, graphic, or other form of campaign material prepared by a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or an agent of a candidate or authorized committee (not including a communication described in paragraph (9)
`(i) A payment made by a person in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, at the request or suggestion of, or pursuant to any general or particular understanding with a candidate, the candidate's authorized committee, the political party of the candidate, or an agent acting on behalf of a candidate, authorized committee, or the political party of the candidate.
`(ii) A payment made by a person for the production, dissemination, distribution, or republication, in whole or in part, of any broadcast or any written, graphic, or other form of campaign material prepared by a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or an agent of a candidate or authorized committee (not including a communication described in paragraph (9)
http://www.aclj.org/news/govt/020328_campa...ance_reform.asp
Whew. So, if you read through all this, what you find is that you cannot exceed individual spending limits on an ad that includes campaign material. Therefore, you cannot run an ad "of any kind." Furthermore, if a candidate says something to the effect of, "Hey, maybe you should make an ad about me," you can no longer exceed individual spending limits on an ad for that candidate, regardless of the content.
From Scalia's dissent
This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have
imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years,
has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential
forms of expression as virtual child pornography, Ashcroft v. Free
Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), tobacco advertising,
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001),
dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, Bartnicki
v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), and sexually explicit cable
programming, United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.,
529 U.S. 803 (2000), would smile with favor upon a law that cuts
to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the
right to criticize the government. For that is what the most
offensive provisions of this legislation are all about. We are
governed by Congress, and this legislation prohibits the criticism
of Members of Congress by those entities most capable of giving
such criticism loud voice: national political parties and
corporations, both of the commercial and the not-for-profit sort.
It forbids pre-election criticism of incumbents by corporations,
even not-for-profit corporations, by use of their general funds;
and forbids national-party use of "soft" money to fund "issue ads'
that incumbents find so offensive.
To be sure, the legislation is evenhanded: it similarly
prohibits criticism of the candidates who oppose Members of
Congress in their reelection bids. But as everyone knows, this is
an area in which evenhandedness is not fairness. If all
electioneering were evenhandedly prohibited, incumbents would have
an enormous advantage. Likewise, if incumbents and challengers
are limited to the same quantity of electioneering, incumbents are
favored. In other words, any restriction upon a type of campaign
speech that is equally available to challengers and incumbents
tends to favor incumbents.
Beyond that, however, the present legislation targets for
prohibition certain categories of campaign speech that are
particularly harmful to incumbents. Is it accidental, do you
think, that incumbents raise about three times as much "hard
money" -- the sort of funding generally not restricted by this
legislation -- as do their challengers? See FEC, 1999-2000
Financial Activity of All Senate and House Campaigns (Jan. 1, 1999-
Dec. 31, 2000) (last modified on May 15, 2001),
http://www.fec.gov/press/ 051501congfinact/tables/allcong2000.xls
(all Internet materials as visited Dec. 4, 2003, and available in
Clerk of Court's case file). Or that lobbyists (who seek the
favor of incumbents) give 92 percent of their money in "hard"
contributions? See U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG),
The Lobbyist's Last Laugh: How K Street Lobbyists Would Benefit
from the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill 3 (July 5, 2001),
http://www.pirg.org/
democracy/democracy.asp?id2=5068. Is it an oversight, do you
suppose, that the so-called "millionaire provisions' raise the
contribution limit for a candidate running against an individual
who devotes to the campaign (as challengers often do) great
personal wealth, but do not raise the limit for a candidate
running against an individual who devotes to the campaign (as
incumbents often do) a massive election "war chest"? See BCRA
Secs. 304, 316, and 319. And is it mere happenstance, do you
estimate, that national party funding, which is severely limited
by the Act, is more likely to assist cash-strapped challengers
than flush-with-hard money incumbents? See A. Gierzynski & D.
Breaux, The Financing Role of Parties, in Campaign Finance in
State Legislative Elections 195-200 (J. Thompson & S. Moncrief
eds. 1998). Was it unintended, by any chance, that incumbents are
free personally to receive some soft money and even to solicit it
for other organizations, while national parties are not? See new
FECA Secs. 323(a) and (e). (end of quote)
I believe the primary purpose of the 1st was to prohibit those in power from restricting speech as a means to continue in office. That is what this bill does. It protects incumbants from political attack. It restricts money more often used by political challengers. It's effect is to increase the already significant difference in spending ratio between the typical incumbant versus the typical challengers warchest. Yes, it was a sad day for the 1st Amendment, and for all Americans.
Yep, Congress passsed a bill that protects incumbants and lobbyists. Is that the kind of reform we need?
This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have
imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years,
has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential
forms of expression as virtual child pornography, Ashcroft v. Free
Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), tobacco advertising,
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001),
dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, Bartnicki
v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), and sexually explicit cable
programming, United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.,
529 U.S. 803 (2000), would smile with favor upon a law that cuts
to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the
right to criticize the government. For that is what the most
offensive provisions of this legislation are all about. We are
governed by Congress, and this legislation prohibits the criticism
of Members of Congress by those entities most capable of giving
such criticism loud voice: national political parties and
corporations, both of the commercial and the not-for-profit sort.
It forbids pre-election criticism of incumbents by corporations,
even not-for-profit corporations, by use of their general funds;
and forbids national-party use of "soft" money to fund "issue ads'
that incumbents find so offensive.
To be sure, the legislation is evenhanded: it similarly
prohibits criticism of the candidates who oppose Members of
Congress in their reelection bids. But as everyone knows, this is
an area in which evenhandedness is not fairness. If all
electioneering were evenhandedly prohibited, incumbents would have
an enormous advantage. Likewise, if incumbents and challengers
are limited to the same quantity of electioneering, incumbents are
favored. In other words, any restriction upon a type of campaign
speech that is equally available to challengers and incumbents
tends to favor incumbents.
Beyond that, however, the present legislation targets for
prohibition certain categories of campaign speech that are
particularly harmful to incumbents. Is it accidental, do you
think, that incumbents raise about three times as much "hard
money" -- the sort of funding generally not restricted by this
legislation -- as do their challengers? See FEC, 1999-2000
Financial Activity of All Senate and House Campaigns (Jan. 1, 1999-
Dec. 31, 2000) (last modified on May 15, 2001),
http://www.fec.gov/press/ 051501congfinact/tables/allcong2000.xls
(all Internet materials as visited Dec. 4, 2003, and available in
Clerk of Court's case file). Or that lobbyists (who seek the
favor of incumbents) give 92 percent of their money in "hard"
contributions? See U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG),
The Lobbyist's Last Laugh: How K Street Lobbyists Would Benefit
from the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill 3 (July 5, 2001),
http://www.pirg.org/
democracy/democracy.asp?id2=5068. Is it an oversight, do you
suppose, that the so-called "millionaire provisions' raise the
contribution limit for a candidate running against an individual
who devotes to the campaign (as challengers often do) great
personal wealth, but do not raise the limit for a candidate
running against an individual who devotes to the campaign (as
incumbents often do) a massive election "war chest"? See BCRA
Secs. 304, 316, and 319. And is it mere happenstance, do you
estimate, that national party funding, which is severely limited
by the Act, is more likely to assist cash-strapped challengers
than flush-with-hard money incumbents? See A. Gierzynski & D.
Breaux, The Financing Role of Parties, in Campaign Finance in
State Legislative Elections 195-200 (J. Thompson & S. Moncrief
eds. 1998). Was it unintended, by any chance, that incumbents are
free personally to receive some soft money and even to solicit it
for other organizations, while national parties are not? See new
FECA Secs. 323(a) and (e). (end of quote)
I believe the primary purpose of the 1st was to prohibit those in power from restricting speech as a means to continue in office. That is what this bill does. It protects incumbants from political attack. It restricts money more often used by political challengers. It's effect is to increase the already significant difference in spending ratio between the typical incumbant versus the typical challengers warchest. Yes, it was a sad day for the 1st Amendment, and for all Americans.
Yep, Congress passsed a bill that protects incumbants and lobbyists. Is that the kind of reform we need?
QUOTE(Hugo @ Dec 20 2003, 10:15 PM)
Yep, Congress passsed a bill that protects incumbants and lobbyists. Is that the kind of reform we need?
I'm not sure how third party individuals or challengers have been handicapped. I understand that incumbents have an advantage in terms of using their franking privleges and the like, perhaps something should be drafted to limit the powes of their offices to just pertain to matters of government, and not election opportunities. The law applies to both incumbents and challengers, and although incumbents do have an advantage, the amount of money they could raise has been limited. It's not perfect, but it's a good start. Take the Howard Dean attack ad for example. The ad had Osama Bin-Laden in it and was created by a fictional citizens group that was really comprised of high level Gephardt people designed to tear down Dean. The ad wasn't "educational" as many anti-reformers would state. It was a below the belt attack that had little to do with "the people" or "educating the voters" Such pretenses lead me to believe that the average person is not being harmed by these campaign finance laws.
To me, the first amendment issue is a rouse, pure and simple designed to deflect attention away from the main issue-the buying of our elected representatives by lobbyists and corporations who want the right to bribe our officials to remain sacrosanct. We need to have something in place. Politicians and money go about as well together as gasoline and a lit match.
QUOTE
In one instance examined by the Los Angeles Times, Stevens invested $50,000 in real-estate partnerships that have grown in value since 1997 to between $750,000 and $1.5 million.
http://www.azstarnet.com/star/fri/31219NSenator-Money.html
Squid the SC ruling that money=freedom of speech I believe is only is in re: to political speech. 
Given this Supreme Court ruling (essentially that the Congress can abridge free speech in the effort to reduce "corruption"), has the 1st Amendment been weakened?
Yes I absolutely do feel it is has. And many members of Congress admitted that this would be necessary in order to bring us a better kind of democracy. Oh thank you Congress!
How sad that we have allowed our government to tell us and restrict us in how we must engage them. How sad that most of us do not even understand the logistics involved when these new requirements dictate our political speech and our interaction in the election process.
Also it was not said but political rights in this country allow us to freely promote, criticize, organize and influence our government and I do find this to be a restriction of these rights.
It is protectionism for the incumbents.
It is greater control for the Media.
How can we claim rational thought is provoking when we attempt to eradicate corruptness from the government by allowing the "corrupt" government itself to decide the means and manner to achieve this?
I had always thought that the purpose of participating in our government was in order to influence it. I have no idea how we have been led to believe or view our influence of our government as corrupt. I have no idea why the need to control the appearance of corruption is of more importance then our need to freely interact, criticize, influence and promote our ideas within our government.
I also have no idea why the government now needs to ensure that the voter is properly informed in the manner the government best sees fit. We have asked to gain better control over our Congress by essentially relinquishing more control to Congress.
How about the simple fact that most incumbents are non-third party affiliated and that they have passed laws that now disallow anyone criticizing them 60 days prior to an election. Or that they have restricted how anyone is to speak freely and attempt to organize and rally others to take action against an incumbent they may deem unworthy 60 days prior to an election.
Soft money is said to be used for things like get out and vote campaigns and voter registration campaigns..how terribly corrupt! That is how soft money came about...it is sold to us as if it was some kind of loophole that corrupt bodies tore open in our system but soft money was legally allowed and amended by Congress in attempts to help fund "grassroot" projects..like the voter turnout etc. The restrictions were also loosened in attempt for party building encouragement. Now at a time when bringing third party influence into our system is no better evident we have congress enacting laws to restrict this again.
Yes I believe there is corruption...I believe that Congress has corrupted the public's view on this issue. I have an idea for eliminating corruption in our government..how about we take a step back from all the law enacting and legislating and maybe head in a new direction? Maybe eliminating the many bizillion avenues one has to corrupt it's government would be a more definitive solution? Meaning if we limit government we limit it's possibility to being corrupted. Perhaps that is where the seed of corruption was planted?
I was fairly shocked myself as I had thought this issue advocacy garbage was highly unlikely to pass as constitutional.
QUOTE
Given this Supreme Court ruling (essentially that the Congress can abridge free speech in the effort to reduce "corruption"), has the 1st Amendment been weakened?
Yes I absolutely do feel it is has. And many members of Congress admitted that this would be necessary in order to bring us a better kind of democracy. Oh thank you Congress!
How sad that we have allowed our government to tell us and restrict us in how we must engage them. How sad that most of us do not even understand the logistics involved when these new requirements dictate our political speech and our interaction in the election process.
Also it was not said but political rights in this country allow us to freely promote, criticize, organize and influence our government and I do find this to be a restriction of these rights.
It is protectionism for the incumbents.
It is greater control for the Media.
How can we claim rational thought is provoking when we attempt to eradicate corruptness from the government by allowing the "corrupt" government itself to decide the means and manner to achieve this?
I had always thought that the purpose of participating in our government was in order to influence it. I have no idea how we have been led to believe or view our influence of our government as corrupt. I have no idea why the need to control the appearance of corruption is of more importance then our need to freely interact, criticize, influence and promote our ideas within our government.
I also have no idea why the government now needs to ensure that the voter is properly informed in the manner the government best sees fit. We have asked to gain better control over our Congress by essentially relinquishing more control to Congress.
QUOTE
I'm not sure how third party individuals or challengers have been handicapped. I understand that incumbents have an advantage in terms of using their franking privleges and the like,
How about the simple fact that most incumbents are non-third party affiliated and that they have passed laws that now disallow anyone criticizing them 60 days prior to an election. Or that they have restricted how anyone is to speak freely and attempt to organize and rally others to take action against an incumbent they may deem unworthy 60 days prior to an election.
Soft money is said to be used for things like get out and vote campaigns and voter registration campaigns..how terribly corrupt! That is how soft money came about...it is sold to us as if it was some kind of loophole that corrupt bodies tore open in our system but soft money was legally allowed and amended by Congress in attempts to help fund "grassroot" projects..like the voter turnout etc. The restrictions were also loosened in attempt for party building encouragement. Now at a time when bringing third party influence into our system is no better evident we have congress enacting laws to restrict this again.
Yes I believe there is corruption...I believe that Congress has corrupted the public's view on this issue. I have an idea for eliminating corruption in our government..how about we take a step back from all the law enacting and legislating and maybe head in a new direction? Maybe eliminating the many bizillion avenues one has to corrupt it's government would be a more definitive solution? Meaning if we limit government we limit it's possibility to being corrupted. Perhaps that is where the seed of corruption was planted?
I was fairly shocked myself as I had thought this issue advocacy garbage was highly unlikely to pass as constitutional.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.