1st Amendment Killed By The Bcra
Forlorn
Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2634Banned
Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2634Banned
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Hello George Orwell, Liberals Win</div> <a href='http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/softmoneyban.htm' target='_blank'>A very concise write up on what the BCRA is, with links to more if you desire it.</a>
Here's the jist of it here for your convience, but if you want to read the great dissenting oppinions written by the Supreme court judges, click on the link above.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The key components of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), as McCain-Feingold has been known since its passage, include a ban on soft money and restrictions on issue ads in the weeks before an election. These restrictions are constitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court said today. A closely divided court, voting 5-4 or 6-3 on most parts of the case, agreed today with campaign finance supporters that corruption in politics, or even the appearance of corruption, justifies the limitations on free speech that such restrictions create.
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>Soft Money Ban</span>
Direct contributions from corporations and unions to candidates have long been prohibited under federal law, and contributions from individuals to candidates have been limited to $1,000 per election (increased to $2,000 under BCRA). However, corporations, unions and wealthy individuals were, until the passage of BCRA, permitted to make large, unregulated contributions to political parties, known as "soft money." Soft money was not subject to the contribution limits in federal law. The court today said that such contributions exploit loopholes and circumvent the intent of campaign finance laws, and limits on them are constitutional. The elimination of soft money means that political parties and candidates may now only raise money under the limits of the law, and the practice of raising funds without limitations will end.
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>Restrictions on Political Advertising</span>
<b>A second key provision of BCRA upheld today deals with issue ads. BCRA created a new class of ads, called electioneering communications, defined as broadcast, cable or satellite ads that refer to a clearly identified candidate, are aired in the 60 days before a general election or the 30 days before a primary election, and are "targeted: (the ad can be received by 50,000 people in the Congressional district or state where the election is being held). Under the old campaign finance laws, such ads were largely unregulated. Under BCRA, corporations and unions are prohibited from airing such ads, and political parties may only pay for them with "hard money," money raised under the limits of the law.</b>
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>What It Means for States</span>
BCRA regulates the campaigns of federal candidates, so most of its provisions do not apply to state campaigns. The one exception pertains to the fundraising activities of state political parties. Under BCRA, any campaign activity a state political party engages in on behalf of a federal candidate must be paid for with "hard money" - money raised in the limited amounts permitted by the law. Those limits are as follows: Individuals are limited to giving no more than $10,000 per year to each state, district, and local political party committee. Individuals also are limited to a total of $37,500 in the aggregate per two-year election cycle to all committees other than national party committees. This includes PACs, state and local party committees, etc. Large, unregulated "soft money" contributions may no longer be routed through state political parties to help pay for federal campaigns. Note that these limits apply only to funds that a state or local political party raises to fund activities relating to a federal candidate's campaign. State laws still apply to fundraising for state and local campaign activities.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Truely a sad sad day in America.
Note, the only thing I have problems with is the part in bold. It is obviously a direct violation of our free speech in America. They are limiting our political discourse. Even if it means I won't see 100 commercials a day bashing bush, I'm completely against it. This is <i>wrong</i>. There is no logical or sane reason as to why this should happen.
Further more, this means that if there is no more political advirtising, as the government is now limiting it, how will it control it? Our TV is already heavily watched by the government; anything over that will be caught easily. However, the other two targets which are much harder to regulate but will probably be hit, and hit hard:
Radio
Internet
There will have to be more and more controls on these as well.
Hooray.
What's more, not only is this bill unconstitutional, it sets a landmark for two things:
<b>1. It is a monumental failure of our entire government system, all 3 branches, as:</b>
- Our legislative branch passed it (mainly the demoncrats passed it, with some exceptions, and mainly republicans voted against it, with some exceptions).
- It didn't get vetoed by our executive branch. Bush clearly stated when he was campaigning for President in 2000 that he would never have a soft money ban, or furthermore, something which would freaking eliminate political ads. GG Free speech. I don't know if Bush vetoed it, but the House and Senate overturned it, but from what I believe Bush passed it. Can anyone tell me if Bush did indeed veto or pass this? I will surely remember this come election time.
- The supreme court actually [u]managed to ignore our bill of rights[/b] in a 5-4 desicion. There are some GREAT dissenting articles written by the judges in the minority, it makes me sad that the other 5 justices could fall victim to petty politics and ignore the obvious. The supreme court should have struck down the bill 9-0 untill the part on limiting political discourse was eliminated, but alas, apparently our justices are dumb morons.
<b>2. All supreme court desicions are landmarks for other desicions.</b>
This means that the bill of rights could be ignored, again. And again. Remember, it always starts small. You may think: "Oh big deal, no more commercials of political crap," but the truth is that if the Bill of Rights can be ignored once, it can be done twice, three times, or however many is needed to give the government control.
I'd thought I'd be older when this finally happened, the usurping of our basic rights as American citizens - no, as human beings, but I guess reality couldn't wait. I feel sorry that most American's haven't even noticed that this has happened, and I also feel sorry that I'm virtually powerless to stop such a thing.
I have one vote to spend come next year, and I have no clue of who I should vote for. Bush <b>is</b> a liberal. He should really have campaigned as a demoncrat (spelling on purpose). I won't vote for demoncrats ever, but out of the two choices I'll have next year, Bush or Dean, it's shaping up to be a really crappy desicion.
Here's the jist of it here for your convience, but if you want to read the great dissenting oppinions written by the Supreme court judges, click on the link above.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The key components of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), as McCain-Feingold has been known since its passage, include a ban on soft money and restrictions on issue ads in the weeks before an election. These restrictions are constitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court said today. A closely divided court, voting 5-4 or 6-3 on most parts of the case, agreed today with campaign finance supporters that corruption in politics, or even the appearance of corruption, justifies the limitations on free speech that such restrictions create.
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>Soft Money Ban</span>
Direct contributions from corporations and unions to candidates have long been prohibited under federal law, and contributions from individuals to candidates have been limited to $1,000 per election (increased to $2,000 under BCRA). However, corporations, unions and wealthy individuals were, until the passage of BCRA, permitted to make large, unregulated contributions to political parties, known as "soft money." Soft money was not subject to the contribution limits in federal law. The court today said that such contributions exploit loopholes and circumvent the intent of campaign finance laws, and limits on them are constitutional. The elimination of soft money means that political parties and candidates may now only raise money under the limits of the law, and the practice of raising funds without limitations will end.
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>Restrictions on Political Advertising</span>
<b>A second key provision of BCRA upheld today deals with issue ads. BCRA created a new class of ads, called electioneering communications, defined as broadcast, cable or satellite ads that refer to a clearly identified candidate, are aired in the 60 days before a general election or the 30 days before a primary election, and are "targeted: (the ad can be received by 50,000 people in the Congressional district or state where the election is being held). Under the old campaign finance laws, such ads were largely unregulated. Under BCRA, corporations and unions are prohibited from airing such ads, and political parties may only pay for them with "hard money," money raised under the limits of the law.</b>
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>What It Means for States</span>
BCRA regulates the campaigns of federal candidates, so most of its provisions do not apply to state campaigns. The one exception pertains to the fundraising activities of state political parties. Under BCRA, any campaign activity a state political party engages in on behalf of a federal candidate must be paid for with "hard money" - money raised in the limited amounts permitted by the law. Those limits are as follows: Individuals are limited to giving no more than $10,000 per year to each state, district, and local political party committee. Individuals also are limited to a total of $37,500 in the aggregate per two-year election cycle to all committees other than national party committees. This includes PACs, state and local party committees, etc. Large, unregulated "soft money" contributions may no longer be routed through state political parties to help pay for federal campaigns. Note that these limits apply only to funds that a state or local political party raises to fund activities relating to a federal candidate's campaign. State laws still apply to fundraising for state and local campaign activities.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Truely a sad sad day in America.
Note, the only thing I have problems with is the part in bold. It is obviously a direct violation of our free speech in America. They are limiting our political discourse. Even if it means I won't see 100 commercials a day bashing bush, I'm completely against it. This is <i>wrong</i>. There is no logical or sane reason as to why this should happen.
Further more, this means that if there is no more political advirtising, as the government is now limiting it, how will it control it? Our TV is already heavily watched by the government; anything over that will be caught easily. However, the other two targets which are much harder to regulate but will probably be hit, and hit hard:
Radio
Internet
There will have to be more and more controls on these as well.
Hooray.
What's more, not only is this bill unconstitutional, it sets a landmark for two things:
<b>1. It is a monumental failure of our entire government system, all 3 branches, as:</b>
- Our legislative branch passed it (mainly the demoncrats passed it, with some exceptions, and mainly republicans voted against it, with some exceptions).
- It didn't get vetoed by our executive branch. Bush clearly stated when he was campaigning for President in 2000 that he would never have a soft money ban, or furthermore, something which would freaking eliminate political ads. GG Free speech. I don't know if Bush vetoed it, but the House and Senate overturned it, but from what I believe Bush passed it. Can anyone tell me if Bush did indeed veto or pass this? I will surely remember this come election time.
- The supreme court actually [u]managed to ignore our bill of rights[/b] in a 5-4 desicion. There are some GREAT dissenting articles written by the judges in the minority, it makes me sad that the other 5 justices could fall victim to petty politics and ignore the obvious. The supreme court should have struck down the bill 9-0 untill the part on limiting political discourse was eliminated, but alas, apparently our justices are dumb morons.
<b>2. All supreme court desicions are landmarks for other desicions.</b>
This means that the bill of rights could be ignored, again. And again. Remember, it always starts small. You may think: "Oh big deal, no more commercials of political crap," but the truth is that if the Bill of Rights can be ignored once, it can be done twice, three times, or however many is needed to give the government control.
I'd thought I'd be older when this finally happened, the usurping of our basic rights as American citizens - no, as human beings, but I guess reality couldn't wait. I feel sorry that most American's haven't even noticed that this has happened, and I also feel sorry that I'm virtually powerless to stop such a thing.
I have one vote to spend come next year, and I have no clue of who I should vote for. Bush <b>is</b> a liberal. He should really have campaigned as a demoncrat (spelling on purpose). I won't vote for demoncrats ever, but out of the two choices I'll have next year, Bush or Dean, it's shaping up to be a really crappy desicion.
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Under BCRA, corporations and unions are prohibited from airing such ads, and political parties may only pay for them with "hard money," money raised under the limits of the law.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where exactly is the limiting of free speech there? It just means that political parties can't get their corperate buddies to air ads for them, and parties must use money that they actually have earned as opposed to massive cash payoffs from afforementioned companies.
It doesn't say "You can't air ads" or "You can only air certain ads" it's "If you want to air ads, you have to be a political party and you have to earn the required money". Nothing that violates freedom of speech there.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bush is a liberal<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Man that had me laughing. Sure, I'm amazed that he passed a bill like this, simply because as a Republican Bush is pretty cozy with big buinesses, but if that guy is a liberal then I'd hate to see a conservative. Just tell me, does Bush support abortion? Does he help the environment? Does he support free health care and education? Last I checked it was a big no to all those points, and as such Bush is about as far from a liberal as you could get.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Under BCRA, corporations and unions are prohibited from airing such ads, and political parties may only pay for them with "hard money," money raised under the limits of the law.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where exactly is the limiting of free speech there? It just means that political parties can't get their corperate buddies to air ads for them, and parties must use money that they actually have earned as opposed to massive cash payoffs from afforementioned companies.
It doesn't say "You can't air ads" or "You can only air certain ads" it's "If you want to air ads, you have to be a political party and you have to earn the required money". Nothing that violates freedom of speech there.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bush is a liberal<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Man that had me laughing. Sure, I'm amazed that he passed a bill like this, simply because as a Republican Bush is pretty cozy with big buinesses, but if that guy is a liberal then I'd hate to see a conservative. Just tell me, does Bush support abortion? Does he help the environment? Does he support free health care and education? Last I checked it was a big no to all those points, and as such Bush is about as far from a liberal as you could get. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yes, I forgot to mention the ban works like this:
30 days before state elections the ads are prohibited, 60 days before general elections the limitations are imposed.
Ryo, not only has Bush stood by while this monstrosity of a bill has been passed, but he's also:
Taken weak stances on illeagal immigration.
Envrioment? He's lighted up the restrictions a tad, but that's to keep the US from loosing the last remaints of our once great industrial empire.
Affirmative Action? Not only is affirmative action unconstitutional (Affirmative Action is racism no matter how you look at it), but Bush SUPPORTED IT???!?!?!?
Being anti-abortion is hardly liberal or conservative, there's also the religious (which Bush is) who deeply oppose abortion.
Free health care? That's very expensive, and would be socialism by all the taxes it would require. Same with free education.
Keep in mind, liberal does not equate to Communist in America.
It does seem a little strange to be placeing a complete ban on those ads, though the only mention I can see of that is that they are "targetted", which seems to mean they can be recieved by 50,000 people, which doesn't quite equate to a ban. However, I do think it's overbearing to be blaming this on liberals, I mean both sides of the political spectrum are affected by this equally as much. It doesn't really give either side an advantage. Perhaps that's the goal; level the playing field so the political party with the most money can't just flood the TV stations with ads. Whether or not that violates the Constitution is a matter for the Supreme Court to decide, and they obviously didn't think that it did.
This might lead to an increase in radio advertisements, as well as leaflet campaigns and active "on-the-ground" political rallies. Not really a bad thing in my opinion. In any case, it doesn't stop a political party from saying anything, or indeed, getting their message across. That's probably why the bill got through.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In examining this, the freedom of the press remains upheld, as the press is still just as free to report on the political parties as they see fit. This bill doesn't restrict that. Nor does it restrict freedom of speech; if the bill had said "All political parties, for 60 days prior to elections, cannot use any medium of communication to express their political stances", then yeah, freedom of speech would be violated. But it doesn't do that; as I've said, political parties are still free to say whatever they want and the press can report that as it wants; all that has been blocked is one method of transmitting that information to the public.
It does seem a little strange to be placeing a complete ban on those ads, though the only mention I can see of that is that they are "targetted", which seems to mean they can be recieved by 50,000 people, which doesn't quite equate to a ban. However, I do think it's overbearing to be blaming this on liberals, I mean both sides of the political spectrum are affected by this equally as much. It doesn't really give either side an advantage. Perhaps that's the goal; level the playing field so the political party with the most money can't just flood the TV stations with ads. Whether or not that violates the Constitution is a matter for the Supreme Court to decide, and they obviously didn't think that it did.
This might lead to an increase in radio advertisements, as well as leaflet campaigns and active "on-the-ground" political rallies. Not really a bad thing in my opinion. In any case, it doesn't stop a political party from saying anything, or indeed, getting their message across. That's probably why the bill got through.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In examining this, the freedom of the press remains upheld, as the press is still just as free to report on the political parties as they see fit. This bill doesn't restrict that. Nor does it restrict freedom of speech; if the bill had said "All political parties, for 60 days prior to elections, cannot use any medium of communication to express their political stances", then yeah, freedom of speech would be violated. But it doesn't do that; as I've said, political parties are still free to say whatever they want and the press can report that as it wants; all that has been blocked is one method of transmitting that information to the public. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
#1. It does level the playing field, but only for the left. Republicans normally had a HUGE advantage in the amount of soft money they got.
#2. This is a direct attack on the first passage of the bill of rights, because, again, it limits to what we can or cannot say. You basically killed your argument with the last sentence, lets put it in a different context:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->all that has been blocked is one method of transmitting that information to the public.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I would indeed consider this unconstitutional. You can use whatever terms you want, 'blocked' can equate to limiting, restricting, whatever, but no matter how pretty you dress up the subject we cannot avoid the main problem at hand.
The way I read it any canidate's campaign management can create and air television and radio ads for their canidate using only hard money, however for the 60 days before a general election and/or 30 days before a primary election industries and other supporters outside of the campaign cannot air ads for the canidates.
To simplify it further:
In the days just before an election, extra supporters will be barred from the air allowing for the canidates to "ad spar" without outside intervention. For all intents and purposes allowing canidates to have the possibility of equal airtime.
Personally, I see no problem with it.
oh, and bush is a conservative, i'm sorry to say, you're wrong on that one too. in order to be elected president a person has to be moderate more than he/she is anything else, there're just too many people to please. a straight conservative or liberal(either one) has no chance in this government.
oh and, so you know, no matter which country you're in liberal is socialist, though, how extreme you are on the political spectrum is how exactly how you're defined...far left is communist, complete evening of all the classes, blah blah blah, this isn't a political debate, then the libertarians, etc, and right at the middle are the democrats, who sit all nice and pretty right next to the rep[ublicans, you beloved "conservatives." if you want to live udner the rule of a strict conservative leader go start up a dictatorship some where in the south pacific. a government with that kind of extremist leadership has no place in the free world.
This is the same sort of crap republicans and democrats go at every year. You know when republicans try to pass a bill to help homeless people, democrats didn't approve unless they added a few off-the-wall laws like "Cannot chain a girraffe to a light post." Ever wonder how goofy laws like that get formed? THIS IS WHY! The reason they do that is to make the republicans look bad if they pass it, so the democrats can later point and say "See! They approved this! Look at the stupid republicans! Vote for us!"
It's all crap. It really needs to stop. Either we change the amendment, or you DON'T ban freedom of speech EVER!!! There should be NO exceptions to the rule. Exceptions to the rule are what allow governors and mayors to avoid the electric chair when they do a crime punishable by death. Exceptions to the rule are why foreigners with immunity cannot be touched when they deliberately steal from stores. Exceptions to the rule are how legitimate bills NEVER get passed.
I sincerely believe Democrats would do America harm if they were in the position to in order to take power. I think they've just proven that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"The notion that the government can tell an organization like the ACLU when and how it should address important civil liberties issues is a form of censorship masquerading as campaign finance reform," <b>ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero</b> declared after the ruling.
<b>Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association</b>, said the ruling is "the most significant change in the First Amendment since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which tried to make it a crime to criticize a member of Congress."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a reason why people are calling this "The Incumbent Act". Individuals or collective groups of individuals (read: you and me) are not permitted to spend their own money to present advertisements that denounce the actions of a sitting politician prior to an election. The assumption of the McCain-Feingold bill was that the groups spending this money on advertisements were corrupting the political landscape. In other words, citizens who were using their money to voice their opinions were causing politicians to alter their votes. This, of course, makes no sense as the system was working exactly as it was intended. Sitting politicians, however, clearly don't appreciate having legal "limitations" (silly because they actually created the loopholes for themselves) on how much they can spend to advertise for themselves while common citizens could spend as much as they want to criticize them.
Despite the questionable implementation of the bill, it's still legally sound. The government is free to regulate how something gets said, including forcing you to place certain information with your statements (can be as simple as a trademark notice or a food label); they just can't prevent you from saying anything. They're job is provide an appropriete wrapper for your statement, without obscuring the message.
They also won't protect you (ideally) from the consequences of your statements, such as libel suits.
oh, and bush is a conservative, i'm sorry to say, you're wrong on that one too. in order to be elected president a person has to be moderate more than he/she is anything else, there're just too many people to please. a straight conservative or liberal(either one) has no chance in this government.
oh and, so you know, no matter which country you're in liberal is socialist, though, how extreme you are on the political spectrum is how exactly how you're defined...far left is communist, complete evening of all the classes, blah blah blah, this isn't a political debate, then the libertarians, etc, and right at the middle are the democrats, who sit all nice and pretty right next to the rep[ublicans, you beloved "conservatives." if you want to live udner the rule of a strict conservative leader go start up a dictatorship some where in the south pacific. a government with that kind of extremist leadership has no place in the free world. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about? Did you post in the wrong thread?
However, in the case you are adressing me, I don't care that soft money is being limited.
I do, however, care a LOT if I can't host a simple 30 second commerical (known as a 'spot' in the political world) when it clearly states in the first admendment I may talk freely and publically.
There was another bill in congress that could have been passed - the hague law - which would have limited the donations, but without the clause limiting our amount of talking about the canidates.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
oh, and bush is a conservative, i'm sorry to say, you're wrong on that one too. in order to be elected president a person has to be moderate more than he/she is anything else, there're just too many people to please. a straight conservative or liberal(either one) has no chance in this government. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hate to break it to you, but deep down most people are either extreame left or extreame right on subjects, the term 'balanced' just means they fall on the left and right on an even amount of issues. However, I really don't buy that. I think that people will naturally default to the same extreme more often than not.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->if you want to live udner the rule of a strict conservative leader go start up a dictatorship some where in the south pacific. a government with that kind of extremist leadership has no place in the free world.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This really solidified your post, otherwise I wouldn't have naturally assumed you were trying to get at this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Despite the questionable implementation of the bill, it's still legally sound. The government is free to regulate how something gets said, including forcing you to place certain information with your statements (can be as simple as a trademark notice or a food label); they just can't prevent you from saying anything. They're job is provide an appropriete wrapper for your statement, without obscuring the message.
They also won't protect you (ideally) from the consequences of your statements, such as libel suits.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, no, no the government is not free to regulate how something gets said. Freedom of the press, freedom of speech; under this new bill today we've become exactly what our founding fathers did not want. They created freedom speech and press <b>specifically</b> with politics in mind, much like they were constantly censored and 'regulated' by the British government in the pre-revolution years.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->here's a reason why people are calling this "The Incumbent Act". Individuals or collective groups of individuals (read: you and me) are not permitted to spend their own money to present advertisements that denounce the actions of a sitting politician prior to an election. The assumption of the McCain-Feingold bill was that the groups spending this money on advertisements were corrupting the political landscape. In other words, citizens who were using their money to voice their opinions were causing politicians to alter their votes. This, of course, makes no sense as the system was working exactly as it was intended. Sitting politicians, however, clearly don't appreciate having legal "limitations" (silly because they actually created the loopholes for themselves) on how much they can spend to advertise for themselves while common citizens could spend as much as they want to criticize them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with this.
Though the limitation of donations is necessary (for now the US president is bought instead of being elected) , I can understand that it's a dangerous move to not let citizen voice their opinion on political issues , especially during the elections. Political ads should be limited in time regardless of who's hosting them.
This is approxamatly 10^10 times as worse. I cannot believe how shortsighted everyone is on recognizing the signifcance of this bill. It DIRECTLY goes against the first amendment, plainly and clearly.
The patriot act, while being a bad bill, really is of no concern to the average citizen. It affects the smallest of the minority (maybe 1 out of every 100,000 citizens). This bill affects every single American, and limits them directly in what they can talk about with other citzens.
Despite the questionable implementation of the bill, it's still legally sound. The government is free to regulate how something gets said, including forcing you to place certain information with your statements (can be as simple as a trademark notice or a food label); they just can't prevent you from saying anything. They're job is provide an appropriete wrapper for your statement, without obscuring the message.
They also won't protect you (ideally) from the consequences of your statements, such as libel suits. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hope you didn't misunderstand my sentiment. I absolutely disagree with the Supreme Court ruling. Libel and slander issues aside, we, each one of us, must require the ability to voice our opinions whether in television ads or standing in our front yards. The ability to openly express agreement or disagreement with our political representatives must be unmitigated.
This "legality" is the ultimate example of a slippery slope. All 3 branches of the US government have placed an exception on one of the most fundamental democratic facets.
Where are the conspiracy theorists when you actually want them around......
Can someone tell me why a ban on soft money is a "truely sad day in America" ?
Seriously, I understand what the decision is, and I don't understand why anyone could be upset with it.
Roy is a smart one! Listen to him. I'm in a country where tv-transmitted political advertisement is not allowed. You can still run newspaper ads, and near elections all are allowed to hang up their posters if they register (in order to make sure they also take them down after, or get fined for not doing it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->. That has worked FINE.
Money is influencing politics heavily. The problem is when some rich corporation sponsors a politician so he can run mad ads in tv, but his opponent cannot afford it. so the opponent drowns without the voters having heard his voice. That is the thing you need in a democracy - a level playfield during the elections so that each candidate can get some presence in the media that wont be completely drowned out by top hat politicians with a huge money circus. Then for the rest of the time money and bribery plays its usual role.
I think it is a GOOD idea. You should applud it, really. It will help ensure a more diverse political system, which in the end is what the representative democracy is about isnt it?
All this rule does is give the appearance of trying to do something, while making it easier for incumbents to keep their positions. Now they just have to launder the money through third parties. Oh the horror!
Here's how you could really fix it.....
Require all candidates to keep a public ledger. A publicly balanced ledger that lists and totals all donations from all sources in one column, and totals all expenses down to the buttons they give out at rallies.
It might be tough to keep nickel and dime donations, so put a lower limit of say $5000. Any more than that and it has to be sourced and verified. And by sourced I mean down to the private individual/corporation. So DuPont couldn't give $50,000 to the Save the Whales foundation and have them donate it to the candidate. Then, heck, you can remove all spending and donation caps.
Know why this will never happen? Accountability. It would mean that every single slickster in Washington would be held accountable for where their money comes from.
Instead they just blow smoke up our a** and 3/4 of the people out there fall for it.
Can someone tell me why a ban on soft money is a "truely sad day in America" ?
Seriously, I understand what the decision is, and I don't understand why anyone could be upset with it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know how you missed the BIG BOLD FONT, but here it is again:
<b>A second key provision of BCRA upheld today deals with issue ads. BCRA created a new class of ads, called electioneering communications, defined as broadcast, cable or satellite ads that refer to a clearly identified candidate, are aired in the 60 days before a general election or the 30 days before a primary election, and are "targeted: (the ad can be received by 50,000 people in the Congressional district or state where the election is being held). Under the old campaign finance laws, such ads were largely unregulated. Under BCRA, corporations and unions are prohibited from airing such ads, and political parties may only pay for them with "hard money," money raised under the limits of the law.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It will help ensure a more diverse political system, which in the end is what the representative democracy is about isnt it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you care to explain to me how we get a more diverse political system when I cannot adress the general public?
If the NRA wants to tell the world that they support Bush over Dean, or the NAACP wants to tell the USA that Bush is the biggest enemy to black rights, <b>then they should have every right to.</b> Remember, why shouldn't a 3rd party group be able to promote their canidate of choice?
There is no sense in why we must regulate when a person can or cannot adress large quantities of people publically. This is communism. This is one step closer to 1984 as far as I'm concerned.
Lets see, first they ban political ads from TV, right? Well now, politicians pour millions of dollars on the Radio and Internet to get their message across. Uh-Oh... looks like we have a hole in the law. Better ban political discorse from Radio and the Internet as well.
But wait... I'm just a poor citezen who wants to write his blog on why he wants to vote for Dean... NOPE NOT ANYMORE, YOUR WEBSITE CAN POTENTIALLY BE SEEN BY 50,000 PEOPLE+++!
So now, you have to hide your discussions online. You can talk with your family, but you can't actually adress a large audience without fear of being jailed for breaking an unconstitutional law.
It goes all downhill from there.
In Europe, you may not find that speaking to other Europeans on a broad scale to be important. You may never think that your politicians would take advantage of you, or keep using more and more flawed reasoning that seems sound but is completely messed up. Before you know it, you will all believe 2 + 2 = 5. Let us never forget ignorance is strength.
Here is my reasoning based on someone's comments about the environment, abortion, health care and education.
The Environment: This I can't defend, because Bush is obviously looking out for the interests of big business. If your an environmentalists, Bush is probably your worst enemy.
Abortion: The recent partial abirth abortion bill will never get past the crazy court system, and Bush knows it. It simply a ploy to win over social conservatives who typically vote on that issue.
Health Care: The infamous socialist presrciption drug bill that recently passed and signed in to law is the biggest liberal/socialist move by any American president since Johnson's Great Society. (Note: Bill Clinton, who was actually very moderate, signed in welfare reform, a typically conservative position.)
Education: Also, a relatively recent Education bill was passed that hugely increased federal funding to education. Besides the huge amounts of money being spent, it is entirely unconstitutional for the federal government to fund education at all.
As far a campaign finance reform goes, it would seem as if civil libertarians would be up in arms over limiting free speech, but it is conservatives that seem to be upset over this. Personally, I am undecided on this issue, and I really didn't read a lot of what was said in this forum post.
Forlorn is right, if your a conservative, or even a moderate liberal, this is going to be a very strange election. The rhetoric used by Dean will soon mellow out once he gains the nomination and he will also move towards the center, if he wants to be the next President. It is because of this shakiness that I am independent, and I vote for people based on their record, not on their partisan label.
It is difficult to understand, because I've ventured into the universe of... <u>law</u>.
Simply put, this newest bill does this:
- Limits 'soft' money donations to political parties (3rd party things like the National Rifle Association), which, I think is a good thing. Who knows, perhaps the average politician could run for President now and not be creamed. This removes the HUGE amount of money that is involved with politics.
- Prohibits any sort of TV advirtising 60 days of a general election, and 30 days before a state election. This is a direct and clear violation of Freedom of Speech. This is my beef. Do you understand now? If you want some more bashing on why this whole situation sucks hardcore, you can just look up to my other 5 posts.
Here's a complimentary kick in the nuts for misusing the word "capitalism": *THUMP*
Yah Forlorn. It only means that unions and corporations cannot fund airing ads for or against political candidates during that time period. It also prevents soft money donations from being used in TV political ads.
Soft money is money routed from donations at State and local levels to political candidates. The original donations are given to parties, not candidates. This simply is fixing a loophole from the McCain-Feingold act which banned it on a National scale. Cynics dislike soft money because it essentially, and honestly, in reality allows corporations and interest groups to literally buy out politicians because of large donations. The amendment to the act increased personal donations to $2000 in an effort to make it easier for politicians to accept more money from individuals, and hopefully prevent the illegality of under the table deals.
The whole ban on the corporations and unions from airing ads are complications with many political groups polluting the water. They aren't running for any office, yet in many cases, they run unauthorized endorsements of a certain candidates and therefore are almost on level with libel, which is a crime. I think during a presidential election, one corporation, or political group ran ads that made one candidate seem like a racist, even though the company that ran the ad never contacted the candidate himself.
So... What is the problem ? This isn't in actuality a case about the first amendment, but illegal donations and preventing groups to put words in the mouth of certain candidates.
Tell, I DARE YOU, tell me this isn't going against the first amendment.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A second key provision of BCRA upheld today deals with issue ads. BCRA created a new class of ads, called electioneering communications, defined as broadcast, cable or satellite ads that refer to a clearly identified candidate, are aired in the 60 days before a general election or the 30 days before a primary election, and are "targeted: (the ad can be received by 50,000 people in the Congressional district or state where the election is being held)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It says is created a new class. This class is :
Broadcast, cable or satellite ads (Television ads in general)
Clearly identify a candidate (They can voice their opinions, but they can't identify a candidate, this is a major point in it's legality, they have a right to voice their opinions, but they can't identify a candidate, [Read my above post]
60 days before general election
30 days before a primary election
Targeted, can be recieved by 50000 people.
Now, that just CREATED a class.
Unions and Corporations are PROHIBITED, from using those class of ads.
ANYONE is subject to this law.
And wait a second, what makes this law all of the sudden more constitutional just because only unions and corpirations cannot voice their veiws? It's freedom of speech all the same.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can still address the general public. Let me tell you how:
- Newspapers
- Radio
- Magazines
- Leaflets
- Political rallies
- Internet
- Mail
- Public Forums
- Standing on an apple crate in your local city and giving a political speach
The bill does not modify, restrict, change and censor what you can and cannot say. All it does is make it impossible for you to air your opinions about a political candidate on television if the broadcast can be recieved by over 50,000 people. You want to put an ad on the TV saying "Republicans good, democrats bad!"? Go right ahead, this bill doesn't prevent that. This law simply does not go against the First Amendement. There arn't any grounds for it to be illegal.
Second, I didn't read most of the forum because I really don't care about campaign finance reform, I think there are more important issues.
Third, I am studying law so please do not insult me by saying your venturing into the universe of law and that is is difficult to understand.
I wasn't bashing anything about what you said in reference to campaign finance reform. I was actually defending your view of Bush. Or maybe I am just taking that comment the wrong way. *shrug*
Second, I didn't read most of the forum because I really don't care about campaign finance reform, I think there are more important issues.
Third, I am studying law so please do not insult me by saying your venturing into the universe of law and that is is difficult to understand.
I wasn't bashing anything about what you said in reference to campaign finance reform. I was actually defending your view of Bush. Or maybe I am just taking that comment the wrong way. *shrug* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't take offense, I litterally thought you didn't understand the posts and other stuff so I explained it again.
I still don't understand where you are getting this general public thing.
They also won't protect you (ideally) from the consequences of your statements, such as libel suits.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, no, no the government is not free to regulate how something gets said. Freedom of the press, freedom of speech; under this new bill today we've become exactly what our founding fathers did not want. They created freedom speech and press <b>specifically</b> with politics in mind, much like they were constantly censored and 'regulated' by the British government in the pre-revolution years.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Care to explain the FDA's power over food labels, the FTC's (I think it's them) power over ownership of media outlets, the "clear and present danger" rulings, etc? It comes down to this: You are free to think whatever you want, and give those thoughts a voice in any way that doesn't infringe on the rights of others (right to health in the FDA's case, defamation issues for libel, etc.). At times, free speech and our other rights are contradictory. The government has to do something about those times. Sometimes it's applied in ways that are questionable, sure, but it's still a necessity for it to be available.
And don't worry spooge, I understood you quite clearly. The part of my post that took a different view was my own opinion, on a related topic. I don't think our views are at odds, however.
Basically, I'm for once completely agreeing with Sirus here: This law does not curtail any persons right to voice his, her, or, in the case of legal persons, their opinion towards any kind of policy in any way, it solely creates a regulation against statements regarding a certain person made over a certain medium, and not even that totally. I'll agree that there could've been more coherent and easier ways of implementing it, but essentially, this is nothing but an attempt of avoiding an 'out-sourcing' of soft money donations by big lobbies who then wouldn't pay the party, but simply broadcast the ads themselves.
Oh, and sorry, but I just don't buy the 'only the Republicans will be affected by this' argument. Both Dems, GOP, hell, even Libertarians and Greens are reciving big financial attention from various corps, many of which are often funding more than one party to have influence on any given winning candidate.