Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: campaignfinancesite.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to campaignfinancesite.org.

Comments · 6

  1. Re:You're close, actually by museumpeace · · Score: 1 · on Daylight Saving Time Wastes Energy

    golf, yes. Lobby? why go that far when congresspeople are often golfers themselves and use the social life of golf club membership for some of their contacts and influence peddling?

    e.g. do a google search on the keywords "country club congressional influence" and you find we even have laws about not giving country club memberships to legislators. Golfing junkets were one of the bigger bribe-in-kind affairs that finally got Abramoff noticed in the press and headed to jail.

    Fortunately for woodlands and municipal water supplies, the popularity of this bizarre sport is on the wain. [Myself, I'd go mountain biking with that extra hour of daylight.]

  2. More U.S. gov. corruption: No discussion of GM. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Insightful · on GM Crops Create Herbicide-resistant "Superweed"

    There was no serious public discussion of GM in the United States. I presume someone paid the politicians, as has happened in so many other areas.

    Support campaign finance reform!

    McCain has the right idea.

  3. Let's go after the press as well! by toupsie · · Score: 1 · on Senator Carper Calls for Tax on Online Porn
    During the last election, the press was allowed to support candidates without financial limits while citizen organizations were limited by McCain-Feingold. Fox News, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, New York Time, Washington Post, et al were allowed to run stories and editorials that benefited or harmed candidates for office and did not have to report the expenses incurred in that process or were limited in that pursuit.

    I guess it was that damn first amendment that the churches are taking advantage of as well. Maybe you should vent your anger at the loophole these Churches are using instead of the churches themselves.

  4. Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed by 42sd · · Score: 1, Insightful · on Jail Time For P2P Developers?

    I'm sure most politician's don't start out intending to cater to big businesses interests, it just happens when they realize that a successful campaign requires money that big businesses have.

    Some people are working for campaign finance reform though.

    This isn't offtopic, its just the root of the problem.
    ----

    Theres also that stigma about third parties...

    Zoidberg: You know, Fry, you could join a third party, maybe.

    Amy: Only weirdos and mutants join third parties.

    Zoidberg: Really? I better keep an eye out at the next meeting.

    Fry: What party do you belong to, Bender?

    Bender: Eh, I'm not allowed to vote.

    Fry: 'Cause you're a robot?

    Bender: No. Convicted felon.

  5. Re:Great idea, but... by Tailhook · · Score: 1 · on Senate Candidate Wants to Ban Polling

    What about the first amendment?

    What about it? It's unconstitutional!

  6. Some facts by Wreck · · Score: 1 · on Voteauction.com
    It is appalling to me that after 100+ responses, nobody has addressed the flawed political criticism underlying this criticism.

    So I will.

    The site claims:

    Spending money to influence voters is protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution. Recent Supreme Court decisions have equated freedom of spending money with the freedom of speech.
    What the Supreme Court has found (in Buckley vs Valeo), is that that restrictions on political contributions and expenditures "necessarily reduce[d] the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of the exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money."

    This is not controversial. It takes money to get airtime, buy ads in newspapers, etc. On these grounds, much of the law was invalidated which was being challenged (the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), as amended in 1974, and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act).

    The Court also found that restrictions on political speech could only be justified by an overriding governmental interest, and that the "appearance of impropriety" in elections was one such interest. And on that basis (badly decided IMO, but WHATever), we have the campaign finance restrictions of today.

    The selling of any vote, or even the appearance of selling a vote, would almost certainly pass muster as the reality or appearance of impropriety. And therefore the government has a compelling interest to stop it, which is the interest embodied in the current laws against selling votes.

    So, this site and anything like it will never be able to hide behind first amendment considerations, rightfully so. And thus the equation made on the site between buying votes and spending on campaigns is fundamentally flawed; as a critique of our society it is juvenile.