Slashdot Mirror
FEC Deciding Future of Political Blogs
* * Beatles-Beatles wrote to mention a bill entitled "The Online Freedom of Speech Act". The act, if passed, would make the Internet into a form of media subject to campaign finance laws. From the article: "Amid the explosion of political activity on the Internet, a federal court has instructed the six-member Federal Election Commission to draw up regulations that would extend the nation's campaign finance and spending limits to the Web. The FEC, in its initial rules, had exempted the Internet. Bloggers told the Committee on House Administration that regulations encompassing the Internet, even ones just on advertising, would have a chilling effect on free speech. The FEC vice chairman also questioned the necessity of any rules." Update: 09/23 15:33 GMT by Z : Edited to correct Congress != FEC.
Gov't giving out free wifi. As soon as they own the channels, they have the easy ability to censor it.
Campaign donations are the ultimate form of free speech. Money does not corrupt a politician; unlimited power to tax, regulate and spend is the problem.
Since campaign finance has been regulated and re-regulated, we've seen a few chilling unintended consequences:
1. Third parties are stifled.
2. Incumbents wield huge powers.
3. Loopholes are created hiding the real flow of money.
Bringing campaign finance laws online will only enforce these consequences. Our Constitution is very clear in restricting our Congress from limiting speech. "No law" means NO LAW."
Even ridiculous rules such as mandated government sponsored matching donations restrict the minority positions from being heard in public media forums. Regulating blogs will do incredible damage.
Remember that Democrats and Republicans are both authoritarian parties intent on wealth redistribution. Neither party restricts the other, they actually both help increase the tax base and takes care of each other's cronies.
If you want the ultimate campaign finance regulation you can do a few simple steps:
1. Repeal all donation restrictions and dismantle the FEC
2. Allow anyone (including foreigners and corporations) to finance any candidate in any amount
3. Restrict politicians to their minimum Constitutional powers, so that money has no effect since they're virtually prevented from helping their donators.
4. Allow any candidate that can get on a ballot to join in any government-funded debate.
Anyone who believes more regulations will help is truly blind to the realities of politics today. A properly restrained government is a government that can do no harm. Today's two parties are joined closely, acquiring that power through money control, a.k.a. Speech control. How you spend your money is the ultimate form of expression.
They'll probably just turn blogs over to the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security. You're good to go if you have the platinum "Gannon" license for internet bloggification. After several background and body-cavity searches, naturally.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Why wouldn't political bloggers just move their servers overseas? I doubt some offshore data center would really care if you're running a political blog, as long as they get paid. Seems ridiculous and unenforceable. Then again, we ARE talking about the US Congress.
http://xkcd.com/386/
The summary is 180 degrees wrong on the bill, which will (as the title suggest) protect blogs: here's the actual text.
For more info, see this blog post.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
What am I missing here. How is campaign finance related to freedom of speech?
Someone's been reading a lot of BusinessWeek this morning!
I like how everyone is so for campaign finance reform until it affects their little part of the world. How dare they!
<Amanda`> I just went out to the parking lot in my bathrobe to exchange warez CDs.
but I am not a PAC or any other political organization. I am simply a citizen with shit to say. Fuck the republicans and their anti-speech tactics. No way in hell is this going to be good for anyone. Yahoo, the huffpo, slashdot, K5, and all the blogs out there will have to sensor themselves because some one might post a comment about a politician?
it is one thing to limit money, it is another thing to limit actual speech as if it were an advertisement.
what is next? going down the street and arresting people for trying to convince others to vote for their person? fuck them all.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
That is my final offer.
All it does is protect the status quo and prevent the internet from having any possibility of changing things. Incumbents only pass laws that protect themselves.
a federal court has instructed the six-member Federal Election Commission to draw up regulations
I was under the impression that courts enforced the laws and regualtions written and approved by the Legislature, and wasn't in the business of ordering regulations to be made. I couldn't find anything to explain this in the article, but it's left me perplexed.
I am not totally familiar with the workings of the US legal system, but can anyone shed any more light on this for me? (Maybe it's just an inaccuracy in the article, but I'd like to know more).
Bit by bit, like a frog in luke warm water, slowly getting hotter.
Watch Congress carefully on this one. Any congressmember who votes to limit free speech, online or anywhere else, must be fired immediately. Convicted of violating their oath to protect the Constitution.
US Constitution, First Amendment:
"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."
Of course, they're all capable of it: they've shuffled off to work their fat jobs in the Capitol for years while police have run unconstitutional "free speech zones" which exclude free speech and peaceable assemblies. When your Representative or Senator votes for this bill, demand their head on a platter. It might be the last "petition for a redress of grievances" you'll get to make.
--
make install -not war
Why bother?
Not to say we don't need some way to keep our political twits in check, but the FEC and the US government in general can't do a damned thing if a Canadian blogger vocally prefers candidate X instead of candidate Y in an upcoming US election.
Now, I think most of the world understands what a joke our political system has become, and doesn't really care whether Turd Sandwich or Giant Douche wins. But all the happy paid party-shills can make use of that to trivially circumvent any relevant laws. When it comes to broadcast media, Americans don't tend to watch any foreign channels, so the existing rules more-or-less work. But on the internet, people regularly view material from all over the world, usually without even knowning exactly where in the world it comes from ("Oh, gee, they spell things oddly here, must live in England... Or Australia... Or one of those other funny little micronations that I couldn't find on a map").
We don't need more feel-good laws - We need to make holding public office less of a free-for-all for the biggest lowlifes our society can produce.
regulations encompassing the Internet, even ones just on advertising, would have a chilling effect on free speech
What is with this American idea handing over a new medium to those with the most money (big media, big business lobbying) constitutes "a chilling effect on free speech"
I mean, TV works that way, just look at Fox and CNN for how rubbish news can be under "free speech".
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
The emerging Fascist State of America will feel compelled to put limits on anything that might threaten it's power. When the voice of the little man can reach out to the multitude this is very threatening.
America will accept this without a whimper. We've already lost our right to assemble. Protesters are shipped off to designated fenced-in "free speech zones". US Citizens are held indefinately without charges or a trial.
Meanwhile 80% of Americans are oblivious to the massive increase in Federal power. They care more about the newest episode of The Lost than they do about their Lost Civil Rights. The 20% who do care are increasingly powerless.
When 'free speech zones' are normal
When copyright is more important than people's rights
Unpretentious Sydney reviews by unqualified Sydney reviewers
What about slander and libel laws???
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
Why, yes. It's made of latex and has five fingers.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I'm a little lax in how this works, but what if the server my blog was on is in canada? Do I get fined as a US citizen because I wrote it from here? Or since I live with in driving distance of of the boarder what if I posted it on the other side? Because I'm a citizen do I still face the wrath of the over paid government?
yeah!!!!!!!!! and the Naders! and all inadequately-funded political ideas, while we're at it...
Certainly the idea of regulating political Weblogs leaves a bad taste in my mouth. However, if you don't regulate them, then you've blown such a huge hole in campaign finance reform that you've essentially rendered it meaningless. The 2004 elections proved that rather handily.
So the real question is, is campaign finance reform worth it? Certainly it's a good concept, but if you have to severely restrict free speech in order to make it meaningful, is it worth doing at all? I'm not sure it is.
Granted that controlling political spending is a two-sided philosophical issue. But...
Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
For that matter, all speech is political speech. Politics isn't a partitionable category that you can draw a line around. Politics touches everything, and everything has its political aspects to it.
That aside, I thought that unregulated speech was the American way. Check out the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Oh wait, I guess we've been misreading the Constitution these last 220+ years. Laws disrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abrdiging the freedom of speech, or of the press, etc. is apparently kosher.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
The fact that you're wrong on so many levels is hilarious:
"Today in the House of Representatives, Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) introduced a companion piece of legislation to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's bill (S.678) to exclude the Internet from the definition of "public communication" in the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002."
Keyword: EXCLUDE. The internet is EXCLUDED from the Campaign Finance Reform Act.
I look at Fox News as just a big commercial for the RNC. Why aren't they limited by Campaign Finance Laws?
What we need to do is to fine political candidates who lie, and the media that reports these lies without verification.
The ideal solution would be to have the media jump on them, but as the media is a bunch of lazy fuckers who would reprint slander about the Pope having sex with a goat if someone anonymously faxed it in, that seems unlikely to happen, and we need to start punishing them too.
Remember, slander is an already allowed restriction on free speech.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
in practical terms unless all those little packet thingees can be traced to a certain person in a certain location. Spam seems to prove that it can't be done now.
Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Just goes to show me that: A)Slashdot is not a good source of news. B)No one actually bothers to check the story. C)People believe everything the read. D)It's really funny watching people believe everything they read.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
Trite but true: Someone, please mod parent up and grandparent down.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
It would mean that "I persuade a congressman to vote for a law" and "I pay a congressman to vote for a law" is the same thing. Well if you want to live in a society like that I guess it's fine.
It has always been that way and will always be that way and is the very reason the founders gave a limited and specific set of enumerated powers to the federal government. The state and local governments and people themselves were left with the remainder of the power. Many state govs and most local govs actually respond to the people and are much less likely to get away with nonsense.
Sounds like the private lobbyists who write the laws for Congress to sign have heard of Blogging as Press Freedom in Repressive Places.
--
make install -not war
For all the /.'ers who failed to realize that campaign-finance was a free speech issue to begin with, it's nice to see it finally come home to roost. I can't wait to see all those who were up in arms for McCain-Feingold and such suddenly do an about face when these, the real results of campaign-finance, bubble to the surface. Ahhhh!
They clearly apply the same to "political" speech already, without any new laws. There is quite a bit of debate as to their validity, as opposed to merely publishing counterspeech, and developing the public's critical faculties for sorting facts from fabrications. A technique even more compelling with unaccountable, transient, global, anonymous Internet publishing.
--
make install -not war
Why Bother? Just set up on a server in a foreign country. This Article in Redstate.org is dated April 2005. It must have been a priority for all to see and know.
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
Not technically a dupe. But it might as well be I'm saying.
-Blogging as Press Freedom in Repressive Places-
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
What about them? There's no law preventing you from slandering all you want; there are, however, no protections against the consequences of what you say.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
All campaign finance is stopped.
Each candidate is given a set sum, paid for by taxes.
No outside money, including the candiate's, is allowed.
We then have a situation where Money==Freer Speech.
Other than those with money and a political agenda complaining loudest, where's the problem?
This insures that everyone pays for a FAIR political process, that rich psychopaths don't have a free pass.
We still have individuals and groups taking out ads, saying what they want to say on blogs, and such - but this must be paid for by them.
No more hundred million dollar warchests. No more pollys bought and paid for by special interests. The Repubs, the Demos, the Greens, Libs, Socalists, and whoever else makes the 'final round' gets the same $$$. Any abuse, and the candidate is removed from play or penalized votes (to keep the free facetime of the news at bay - otherwise, candidates would invent scandal to be on TV 24/7 - I'm talking to you, Rove).
So tear this a new one /.ers....
What we have here (the OP) is someone who can read the Constitution, but not the Supreme Court opinions interpretting it. There are many allowable limits on the First Amendment. Depending on the type of limit, it has to pass a certain type of test to be valid. Political speech is generally very strongly protected by the court. Most of the campaign finance laws deal with reporting requirements rather than flat out speech restrictions. Also, limiting the amount of money you can donate does not prohibit your speech. You still have many avenues you can use to support your candidate or to speak out. Also, it's arguably a "content-neutral" regulation, thus subject to a lower level of scrutiny than a regulation based on the content of the speech. (Or maybe "viewpoint-neutral" but "content-based")
Anyway, while there have been a few (and very few) justices on the Supreme Court which hold the "no law abridging the freedom speech" to be very literate and limit to very few exceptions (such as slander, libel, "fighting-words"). Justice Kennedy is a strong supporter of this view of the First Amendment. However, he doesn't have incredible support for it on the court.
Even many of the "Framers" who wrote the Constitution and the First Amendment passed a law early in Congress severely limiting Freedom of Speech, even political speech. This suggests that they did not see the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech as an absolute by any means.
In closing; don't bother arguing with an absolutist.
What?
Evil republicans have always opposed it, saying it was an infringement on free speech. Evil, evil republicans!
I'll give a brief example of an "alternative" way of relating money to politics and campaigns:
A system where any donation from any person or business to anyone even remotely related to a political party would be considered corruption and therefore illegal. No lobbying, no campaign sponsoring, absolutely no side incomes whatsoever to any politicians from a business, regardless of what reason. For political information to reach the voters at all, government funded campaigns would have to be made for all political parties of a certain dignity. These campaigns would be cheap and more or less equal in size.
How insane does this sound?
Slashdot should retract the story. This is embarassing. The Slashdot crowd can't even be bothered to look the article up for themselves. Good God.
You think Zonk could retract this?
Everybody is against this because the political special interests (who in actuality just want to control the system using money) have tagged it as against free speech.
I say, good, control that money! Stop it if you have to!
We need to make politics not about money anymore. The Internet is a loophole. There are others. Here's to getting them plugged.
In fact it won't work. They can't stop P2P, why do they think they can stop freedom of speech? Seriously, this is retarded. Porn, P2P, and freedom of speech are some hard hitting issues that the old government tries to get its hands into.
The US gov't is so bloated and inefficient, the Internet is a little out of their grasp. If they censor people here, they'll just move servers overseas.
The only thing the US gov't does quickly is kill people (Afghanistan, Iraq and Louisiana). Man they really hate dark people.
Great example from just this last Tuesday. We had a SPLOST up for vote on Tuesday, it is a 1% increase in our sales tax to pay for road improvments, a new courthouse, and more jailspace.
It passed by less than 130 votes. 12% turnout. Better yet, all the belly aching by people who DIDN'T VOTE! Two of us from work who were eligible to vote in the county did, the rest did not; about 7 others.
Having the right to vote is useless unless used.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
4. Profit!
C17H21NO4
"Bloggers told the Committee on House Administration that regulations encompassing the Internet, even ones just on advertising, would have a chilling effect on free speech."
And they are surprised that the asshats in power want to regulate it?
Alot of people seem to be suggesting that this bill introduces censorship. However, I actually RTFMed, and I don't understand what the article is actually *about*. It is complete hot air, and is utterly un-informative. Think about it - *who* is being regulated here? Even that's not clear.
Now, it's something the government is doing. By default, that suggests it's evil and stupid. However, I am not sure whether it aims to regulate people who blog about politics or politicians who blog. If the regulations say "A given candidate can spend only X amount of money on internet ads promoting their campaign, or can only discuss subjects Y,Z,W,U in their official blogs", I am not sure that's a bad idea. The Internet does reach alot of people. Politicoes should have at least some nominal limitations on what they can and can't do.
On the other hand, if the regulations say "If you are Joe Schmoe and you blog about the current election campaign in favor of Candidate X , we'll come and sue you" then that's quite different, and obviously pernicious.
Now, this being the real world, and these are FEC regulations, and further considering that the FEC is a steaming pile of ineffectual excrement that is corrupt enough to give Wall Street a boner, it's safe to say that the regulations
1) Will be stupid
2) Will be Evil
3) Will not control the candidates
4) Will not be enforced against candidates
5) Will have tons of loop-holes
6) Will be broad enough to cover anyone who writes anything political
7) Will be ruthlessly enforced against non-candidates and non-politicians (i.e. everyone else) who happen to discuss uncomfortable truths
8) Will be used as a bullshit excuse by whatever Fascist law enforcement agency happens to be having a fit of pique that day
9) Will be promoted by bottom-feeding scum-sucking politicians as ensuring our "Freedoms" (tm)
and finally
10) Will be passed over objections of the ACLU, EFF, and every awake individual.
Enjoy!
Many blogs, left and right (such as dailykos.com), receive payments from candidates to shill for them.
Why shouldn't they be subject to the same regulations as other paid advertising?
Whether political advertising in any medium should be subject to regulation is another question entirely. But as long as political advertising is regulated, blogs should be treated equally.
A dictator once said, "He who casts the vote decides nothing, he who counts the vote decides everything."
Diebold has more power than we do.
Your vote, it is worthless, and has been for a good eight years or so.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Perhaps American bloggers will now need Reporters without Borders Guide to Bloggers and Cyber-Dissidents. Ironic that the land that once stood for "free speech" should need advice from a Paris-based organization on the topic.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
This is soooooo stupid.
Here in Canada, we had a publication ban on a public inquiry(yeah, we have our retarded policies too), about a group of currupt politicians who were stealing public money. No news org could report the news. So an American did it. He went a few kilometers back across the border and wrote up everything he heard and recorded. Our publication bans do not affect you guys and vice versa.
They can't even keep all the kid touchers off the internet. How in the hell do they think that they'll be able to get rid of or regulate any political ad or article. Maybe they can have GW do google searches while he's on vacation.
-Cnik
If any form of limitation of blogging of politics is imposed, then who is to decide what is and what isn't a political blog? Could the slightest complaint about the roads not getting fixed be construed as a political viewpoint that should be censored?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
to borrow the phrase. The Internet has revolutionized how information is shared, viewed, absorbed, distributed, and used .... The *AA, the governments in general, and many other people are not able to see that the world has changed and the old ways of doing things have to change, including the rules. Many campaign laws were enacted to stop particular misconduct by polititions. Obviously, those laws and practices were flawed in the first place, being aimed at stopping only certain practices. The laws should not be enacted to include the Internet... they should be fixed to prevent malicious political behavior in any manner.
There are several ways to do that, none of them are really elegant or pretty. The trouble with making new laws to govern politicians is that the laws are voted on by the very people they are aimed at? How this makes sense is not readily visible. If the Internet really works, the US two party system will become a 4 or 5 party system in the future... somehow, I think that money will always rule politics though. I think that if there was no money to be made, much of the poor behaviors of politicians would go away with them as they went off to make money elsewhere.
Stifling political comment on the Internet is not the way to stop politicians.... take away the money is.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
1. Repeal all donation restrictions and dismantle the FEC 2. Allow anyone (including foreigners and corporations) to finance any candidate in any amount 3. Restrict politicians to their minimum Constitutional powers, so that money has no effect since they're virtually prevented from helping their donators. 4. Allow any candidate that can get on a ballot to join in any government-funded debate.
or -
5. Outlaw campaign contributions entirely, raise everyone's taxes $5 a year and fund campaigns with tax dollars. Additionally, prohibit retiring Congresspersons from taking a job *anywhere* in the private sector after they retire.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
CAMPAIGN FINANCE YOU!
However, I thought I'd take a moment to THANK Zonk for actually editing. I see his corrections to summaries posted almost daily. Maybe there's an argument to be made about getting it right before it goes up but gorramit the man is at least making an effort when it sometimes seems like no one else is. Good job man.
Also kudos the the whole slachcrew for the HTML/CSS upgrades, no small feat for any organization this size!
We now return you to your regularly scheduled bitching and moaning.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
If only it were that easy to correct Congress.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
This is not that far from what we have, which is strict limits on donations, and limits on the candidates personal expenditures if they want to receive federal campaign funds. This of course only shifts all the money that would have gone to the campaign to independent expenditures (so-called "soft money.") This is precisely what has happened, and now they are trying to limit that too. I'd be willing to tolerate the hard money restrictions, but I see the restrictions on independent expenditures (the focus of McCain-Feingold) to be infringements on the First Amendment right to free speech.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Anyone who is interested in the right to free speech should read Perilous Times by Geoffrey R. Stone, which came out in trade paperback recently.
The book elaborates the history of freedom-of-speech restrictions in the US, as well as the people involved. While the focus is on restrictions made during wartime, there is good material there about non-wartime restrictions.
Unfortunately, the book does not delve into great depth regarding freedom of speech as applied to the internet. However, the book does give great insight into why and how our rights have been restricted over the past two plus centuries, and how freedom of speech is particularly relevant today.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Did you know that the United States sends back a higher percentage of it's Congressional incumbents than most countries? In fact, and I have heard this from many places, we send back a bigger percentage of than the old Soviet Politburo did in it's heyday.
Link to one story
Scary, huh?
I've never bought into the money = speech idea. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but why should person X have a louder voice than mine just because he/she has more money than I do?
Money facilitates speech to some extent, but isnt a direct form of speech. Your ability to stand on a soapbox and talk on the corner isnt limited by money. You can talk until you're tired or hoarse. It didnt cost a thing. Freedom of speech is not the same as a requirement to be heard by more people than you would otherwise normally be heard. Therefore, the idea that money as a speech enabling mechanism is a fallacy.
I guess if I were in charge, I'd limit it at the source. Each American citizen can at most donate $1,000 per year in total to any politican or political group or special interest group or 507 or whatever they're called. They wouldnt be allowed to launder money through other people to funnel it to politicans and other groups. That would limit the funds spent every year to something like 280M x $1,000 (although practically much less, since most people dont have $1,000 to give).
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Here's a brief editorial by the FEC Commissioner explaining her stance. It's from March, but it still gives some perspective on ehat they're doing, and it seems like she is still saying that there will be no disclosure requirements on bloggers themselves.
You're right, the following sentence is totally incorrect:
The purpose of that specific act is actually to protect blogs as free speech.
However, it is true that the FEC is trying to bring blogs under the regulations of campaign finance. The summary got The Online Freedom of Speech Act confused with FEC regulations. :-(
This is definitely not a "nothing to see here" story, it is a "whoops, I accidentally confused 'black' with 'white'" story. Nice external reference, by the way, it makes what the author and editor of this /. story tried to say perfectly clear.
So suppose I setup my political blog server here http://www.sealandgov.com/
Now whats the FEC gonna do to me?
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
The "Online Freedom Of Speech Act" would limit political speech online, because saying you like candidate A, but not candidate B is a "donation"? How Orwellian. If this law is passed, it will be selectively enforced to stifle the minority party's ability to get out the vote. It is ironic that on another thread they called me a troll for suggesting that freedom of speech was in danger in the U.S.
How ya like dat?
I think that the term for those folks is "useful idiots." Concerning the whole "campaign finance reform" movement, this article is of interest; basically it was a huge astroturf campaign.
What a lie to call an act that restricts freedom of speech a Freedom of Speech Act!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
When I saw this comment being modded as funny, I finally realized how Bush got reelected.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
You know you want to.
And that's the problem. Your server might be overseas, but living here in the states still lets the authorities keep you from blogging. I suppose one could work through proxys, but that makes interviews & other one to one bits a little tough. Also people might not be as willing to read that anon blog as they would a blog they know the author of. Moving the server will keep the speech online, but will still chill the speaker.
However another post did show this legislation does not apply to blogs (yet), so this is probably moot.
Blogging because I can...
Campaign finance reform is a joke. Regardless of what limits you put on political donations by corporate interests and special interests, they find ways around them. Can't give millions of corporate dollars to Bush directly? No problem, just create the "Ranger" program where big donors get a code number for people to put on their checks so they can tell what Ranger found that money for them. Then, track and tabulate the amount of donations with each "Ranger's" code number attached to know whom you owe favors to.
In effect, campaign finance "reform" has actually made it easier, not harder, to uncover nefarious influence peddlers. Because even though disclosure of all donations is required, "following the money" is much more complicated when you have a couple thousand investors--I mean donors--to sort through rather than a couple dozen corporations. For instance, it would be very suspicious if shell oil gave $2 million to the Republicans six months before they had a big push to allow oil drilling in the National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, but if you spread those contributions around.... For instance, $1000 each from two thousand employees, it becomes much less clear that it is a case of scratching a big donor's back. In effect, campaign finance reform has given our dirtiest politicians more plausible deniability than they've ever had in this department.
The only solution I can see is public financing of elections. While it is true that this system of campaign finance has some pitfalls as well (how do third-parties and independent candidates get their share of the campaign pot, for example) it would be vastly preferable to the current "Buy the government you want" system. Arizona is currently experimenting with a mixed public/private funding mechanism they call "clean elections"--People voluntarily contribute to a campaign financing pot on their tax returns, and individuals are allowed to donate a small amount to a campaign. But that's it. Corporate dollars are effectively banned entirely from state elections.
It may take a few years to see a big change, but you can tell the special interests are running scared--they're pouring millions in to lawsuits and advertising and lobbying to overturn this bill which keeps them from buying the government they want.
Again, the system isn't perfect, and I'm sure there will be a few dozen knee-jerk libertarian responses to this calling me a liberal, a communist, and everything in between, but it comes from a place of reflection where I've realized there is no such thing as a perfect system for campaign finance, only ones that are less-broken than the one we have now.
Who did what now?
I'd like a little more info on this if someone knows how FEC rules are made? Could you please tell me why a court is telling the FEC what regulations to make; rather than judging a case on its merits? Was there a case involved here at all? If so, which case was it, and what were its rulings? How does the FEC work? Are they supposed to be taking instruction from a federal court? Did the FEC ask the court for its opinion or did they make rules that the court struck down or say was unconstitutional? What branch of government does the FEC fall under?
Short attention spans.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
But in this case it could be that Congress FEC, as the FEC can issue an adminstrative order or some new interpretation of existing rules that would take an Act of Congress to override. The FEC is totally unaccountable to voters, so partisan politics under the guidance of the current Executive branch will be the order of the day. Under the assumption that the Democrats have used the internet more effectively than the Republicans, Congress would most likely NOT override some "anti-internet" FEC decision unless there is significant grassroots pressure.
The Internet is just another media technology like TV, Radio, or Newspapers, except anyone can use it and write on it anything they want to, and unlike the other medias, the Internet is unregulated and an anarchy.
Of course I've love to see a "Spam Tax" or a "Malware Infection Tax" to the people who send Spam or write Malware.
Billy Idol said it best in his "Cyberpunk" CD:
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Or, could a news organization reporting on, say, an elected official's corruption or fondness for "playing" with small children could be defined as a "political attack".
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
Actually, you'll probably only find yourself looking down the barrel of a gun if you resist arrest (after failing to follow some of the laws/regulations you mention) or if you threaten violence yourself.
I challenge you to give me one instance where any of the items in your list have resulted in someone looking down the barrel of a gun otherwise.
Some of the items on your list have even more degrees of separation from a barrel of a gun. Fail to abide by the oh-so-intrusive I-can't-possibly-keep-my-car-under speed limits and what will happen? Most likely, you'll get a speeding ticket. Fail to pay that, and you'll might get a nasty letter and a second and possibly a third chance to pay. Do this enough times and you'll be threatened with arrest. Resist arrest, and then you might be looking down the barrel of a gun. Of course, if you don't have a weapon on you, they'll probably just forceably arrest you even then.
This isn't to say that some of these laws/regulations aren't unjust. Just that you're engaging in just a little bit of hyperbole that has become cliche'.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
This isn't about campaign finance laws. It's about trying to silence the freedom of speech of bloggers.
Hey there! Um, yeah... THAT was so mature. Well, let me quote your inability to spell English: Funny how democrates were the ones that wanted campaign finance reform in the first place (when it suited them).
Well, accordng to the FEC It is a BIPARTISAN Act (hence the B, in BCRA) AKA McCain-Feingold law. John McCain - (R) Arizona (my vote in the 2000 Primaries), Russell Feingold - (D) Wisconsin. They are both about as bipartisan as you can get in Washington. So tell me.... where are the Democrats wanting this?
Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
The original post about this is wrong. It is the FEC that is wanting to impose campaign finance on the Internet -- not Congress. Instead, The Online Freedom of Speech Act is designed to "not include communications over the Internet" as applicable to the Campaing Finance Reform Act. Please see the complete text of the bill at the following URL.
i ?IPaddress=162.140.64.88&filename=h1606ih.txt&dire ctory=/diskb/wais/data/109_cong_bills
3
H. R. 1606
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cg
Online Freedom of Speech Act Introduced in House
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/4/13/164333/83
People saw this and declared it good.
Fast forward a few years. Correct or not, Democrats have the reputation as the "Internet savvy" party. Many people called for blog limitations, and other restrictions that almost seemed tailor-made to benefit Republicans.
People saw this and screamed bloody murder.
See, what goes around has a funny way of coming back around. Many of us said from the very beginning that any political speech restrictions were very, very bad, but no one listened then. At long last, welcome to our point of view. There's plenty of room for all of us, as long as we agree that all restrictions on rights are bad - even the ones that might benefit us individually in the short term.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
There's a few grey areas though...
First of all I could just run for office to get free money for my 'campaign' then spend it all on whatever I want. I don't like tax money paying for politicians. Maybe this could be 'any politician is only allowed to accept money from donations until (s)he has collected X dollars. This would be similar but not be tax money...
However, what if I just have my wealthy benefactors pay for things *for* me? They pay directly for ads, posters, etc. I still get the benefits of their money but it wouldn't be "my" money. Nothing has changed in other words.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
"The FEC vice chairman also questioned the necessity of any rules."
Sometimes, I question the necessity of a government.
What good is free speech if you're regulated how you can tell it, where you can tell it and what you can tell? That's not free speech anymore.
What you can say and how you can say it are things which are being regulated these days.
Even if you say what you want, you can get ready to get sued (by some corporation or by govt or by whomever), so you also better have deep pockets.
If you're a Washigton Post reporter and have backing of the management/lawyers, you can tell things. If you're a blog writer with the same information/sources as WP guy - you probably will end up in lots of trouble.
Free speech my ass. We're all bloody slaves, people just don't want to realize/admit it.
So that I'll know you're making a self-referential joke. ;)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
You've just figured out how the news industry works!! At worst, all you ever have to do is issue a retraction, but the 90% of folk who saw the original miss it. That's why most citizens still believe that Iraq was involved in 9-11 and had WMD.
Evidence at the Canadian Gomery inquiry into Liberal corruption was posted on a US website (Captain's Quarters). Canadian websites were unable to do so due to a publication ban. US political blogs can be just as easily hosted on Canadian or other overseas servers.
Hopefully, everyone with a political opinion making statements will have to issue a statement to the FEC disclosing the value of their statements. I'm sick and tired of people yipping and yapping about politics, and not having that count against the campaign limits.
Money is speech? OK, then set a limit of $X per candidate/issue per vote. If you can't vote, you can't donate. Sadly, this may require an amendment.
The real problem is that there is too much raw power concentrated in too few hands with too little capability for easy voter oversight of those hands. US House of Reps should be apportioned 1 per the number of citizens in the least populated state, or, even better, 1 to 100,000 or less, so that every Congress member can be personally known to his/her constituents. Of course, Congress would swell to an unwieldly, uncontrollable 3000 members or so under this plan.
Could it be that the basic geographical, demographic and economic scope of the USA has grown too enormous to be governable as one single country anymore?
I agree with you 100%...
And I am still in shock that this law was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Come on. I mean people want the government to regulate how much media a company can own or produce... they want the government to regulate how much money political parties can spend on advertisement... they want the government to regulate against information that might be considered offensive, obsene, or hateful...
People are absolutly in love with total government control... until, of course, the government starts to control something that is valuable to them. Then people get all upset.
So now, the bloggers, the majority of whome tend to overwelming support total government regulation and control of just about everything, now have to live with government regulation of their own stuff. They couldn't care when small buisnesses were getting sued and people were going bankrupt and losing everything they own because their bathroom door was 1/4 inch too narrow and didn't meet government regulations for handicap accessability. They couln't care that small parties like the Libertarian Party, or the Green Party are given a perpetual handicap in elections, because limits on capaign donation mean that the political parties will small numbers can not advertize or accept large donations to compete with the big parties. These people could not care the nearly impossible processes people need to go through to own a gun because of gun-control regulation. They could care less about poor people in most major cities where you need to pay at least $40,000 in licences and fees to cover government regulation, thereby making buisness ownership beyond the means of the average person.
They insisted that government regulation was nessicary, that only the government could be trusted with power, that only the government is the legit organization to control just about everything. Now blogs will be regulated like everything else. Deal with it. This is the inevitable end result of your own philosophy. If you are against this regulation, it is because "you are a puppet of big corporporations trying to control everything", that is the standard arguement you used against anyone who didn't support government regulation on everything else.
Stop this whining about the Constitution and Freedom of Speech. Most of you hate the constitution, and freedom of speech... you are only bringing these things up now that you are being effected.
Or at least try to find a valid thought.
You (not me) are actually comparing laws against speeding to rape? Or perhaps you're comparing arrest to rape? I don't know which, but either way, your argument is inane.
Or perhaps you don't understand my point. Jail != barrel of a gun. Perhaps that is too logical for you, however. More than likely you're upset because your favorite pet argument has been shown to be lame.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The idea before is that there were no significant differences in technology between militia-level tech and army-level tech. Nowawadys, army-level tech is insanely more powerful than anything any individual citizen (hency militia-level) can. Think Helicopter, Tank, Strategic Missile, etc etc.
Yea, that's why the fighting has stopped in Iraq, because the insurgents have no way to fight the modern US military and have been wiped out. It must also be how Israel has wiped out all of the terrorists there. NOT!!! Even fighting against superior firepower a small but determined group can have a devastating impact on the superior opponent.
The only way to win a revolt now is to have the some or all of the army on your side. Otherwise, if it comes to shooting matches, the populace will lose.
I'd almost guaranty that if the military were fight it's own population you'd see a lot of personnel desert their positions and join the populace, I know I would of done so if it had happened when I was in the Army and some of my buddies would of too. Not even China was able to use units from the area around Bejing, er Peking, for Tiananmen Square. Instead they had to send in units from other parts of China including the 27th Army, with personnel from different ethnic groups.
After the square had been cleared Chinese Army troops continued to occupy the city5, with continuing reports of sporadic gunfire and interfactional fighting among PLA units. The possibility that units of the PLA would turn on each other was raised in the June 6th edition of the Secretary of State's Morning Summary as well as embassy cables from June 5-6. An embassy cable from June 5 (Document 18) reports that armored units from the PLA's 27th Army "seem poised for attack by other PLA units," and notes that a "western military attaché" largely blames the 27th for the June 3 massacre, and says that the 27th "is accused of killing even the soldiers of other units when they got in the way." The June 6 edition of the Secretary of State's Morning Summary (Document 19) states that the 27th Army is "being blamed for the worst atrocities against civilians during Saturday night's attack on Tiananmen Square," and also notes that "some clashes between military units reportedly have occurred." Document 20, an embassy cable from June 6, refers to "persistent rumours of splits among the military and fighting among military units."
So, given that logic, your average rifle or handgun wont really mean much, other than for show. Guess what, we would have to revert to terrorist-like actions and tactics.
One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, and their tactics are relatively easy to impliment and use. Among the hardest fighting a soldier will see is urban combat. About the only way arond this is by taking out entire urban areas without regard to casualities. But in such circumstances the possibility of gaining converts or those willing to fight increase, as Italians and Croats found when they "executed 10" for every 1 they lost to partisans. No, targetting the general population only stengthens freedom fighters.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The FEC is focusing on money not speech. They want to limit the amount of money which gets spent of promoting (or teashing) a candidate. For most of us (slashdot-freeloader-types) this won't mean anything, since you're posting on someone elses blog.
If you're running the blog, then the amount you spend to run it will be subject to the election regulations.
Thus it gets billed as a "anyone can say whatever they want to" non-infringing program, while the blogging sites become rarer, more tightly controlled, and (eventually) wind up being something only a major-party candidate can afford.
Second order effect: it becomes cheaper to trass the opponent on his site than to promote yourself on your own site, reinforcing the trend toward negative campaigning.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Just in time for getting the word out from under oppressive regimes:
1 12222&tid=158&tid=153&tid=17
Your Rights Online: Blogging as Press Freedom in Repressive Places
Posted by CowboyNeal on Friday September 23, @12:21AM
from the sticking-it-to-the-man dept.
Privacy
museumpeace writes "CNN is carrying an AP story from France on the release of guidelines to help bloggers working under threat of suppressive governments to get out their stories without getting caught. "Reporters Without Borders' 'Handbook for Blogger and Cyber-Dissidents" is partly financed by the French government and includes technical advice on how to remain anonymous online.' Makes me proud to be a developer of communication software."
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/23/0
What about them? Based on the last five or so presidential election campaigns, I think we can safely say they don't apply to politicians.
Jeff
No limits to campaign contributions whatever. However, nobody is eligible to contribute to a candidate that he or she is ineligible to vote for.
Minors couldn't give money to any candidate. In many states, neither could convicted felons.
The RIAA, MPAA, NRA, NAACP, NAAWP, KKK, AFL, CIO, IBM, etc could not contribute a dime to anybody as, being companies and other organizations can't vote.
I can't contribute to your incompetent Governor's campaign and you can't contribute to my wonderfully competent (ha) Governor's campaign.
The only problem with my plan that I can see is that they won't be able to pass it untill pigs fly and hell freezes.
...that any law passed regarding the Internet is completely unenforceable, for the most part. Oh, sure there'll be the token poor soul here or there who gets legally crucified for expressing an opinion which Adolf Bush and crew don't approve of, but for the most part, we can all look forward to business as usual.
There are those of us who believe that God (and not the guy downstairs who Bush pays homage to) actually gave us the Internet at least partially for the purpose of preserving free expression. Short of physically turning it off completely, (and he probably wouldn't find that very easy either) there's precious little he can do about it.
I truly wish Bush would realise that he's no different from Hitler or any other aspirant megalomaniac. They try, and they die, as far as attempts at world domination are concerned. Within a very short space of time, Bush is going to be reduced to nothing more than roadkill by the side of the ten-lane autobahn of history...which is exactly the position he deserves.
> Bloggers told the Committee on House Administration
> that regulations encompassing the Internet, even ones
> just on advertising, would have a chilling effect on
> free speech.
Well, join the club. Churches have had the albatrose
of anti-free speech and censorship hung around their
neck for a while now. Support free speech for all, or
otherwise, don't look to me for support.
How ironic, my stenographic image word is, 'equally'.
Not like that's what the NRA would tell you, but don't you think they might be a little biased on the subject?
Like the antigun camp is baised?
Evidence of an Individual Right
In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Maidson in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
Thomas Jefferson had much to say about people being armed:
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
Many of the USA's Founding Fathers knew the only way to prevent government tyranny was with an armed populace, as Jefferson said "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear government, there is tyranny."
FalconShould there be a Law?
I am still amazed that the same Slashdot geeks who decry any attempt at government invasion of their privacy, fair-use, or free speech rights want said government to control the means of self-defense.
I decry both just as I do any restriction of liberty. There are many laws in the books that need to be stricken from the books.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Off Topic? Someone didn't read the parent post I was replying to. There are lots of stupid laws that don't protect anyone, and simply limit our freedoms. What if I want to eat peanuts in church, or wash my donkey? Hell, I like to get wicked stoned, too!
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
"As opposed to a for-profit corporation. They would never do something like that.
At least the Government is ultimately answerable the citizens. The corporation could care two shits about you unless you are a shareholder -- and even then they might still screw you (Enron)."
A company has to make a profit. To do so, it needs to provide a service that people are willing to pay for. If you don't like their service, boycotting it sends a lot stronger message to the company, than voting for or against a congress person once every few years. That's why capitalism works Companies answer to their customers, who ultimately pay the bills.
Govenrments answer to voters and political donors, which is a much weaker feedback system for acting on customer complaints.
Vote for Pedro
In the United States, the Bill of Rights takes presidence over all other laws (at least that is how it is supposed to work, and until very recently how it worked)... so if there is any question of libel or slander laws being used to restrict free exercise of religion, freedom of speech or press, etc., the libel laws can not be enforced.
This is why Hustler magazine could publish a fake interview with religious leaders, and not put any mention that it was fake or humourous, and when sues the Supreme Court found it was totally acceptable because it was a form of free political expression.
Perhaps we like talking with each other on points posted, even if they do not relate to the main article.
Perhaps we should have a pegged top of page story along these lines:
-----
Blah blah yada blah!
Posted by nimrod.
Today, a member of Blag said blah blah. Etc.
-----
and we could then say anything we want and not merit the Offtopic mod. (I get that one once in a while. ~;-) )
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
Why don't you consider an analogous scenario where a city decides to force all taxi drivers to give free rides in return for a fixed wage? Consider all the implications. First, mass tax-farming and fraud. Then minimum quotas, leading to stagnation of incumbents. Then quota-cheating. Then inspectors. Then bribery. Consider the result: a city paying through the nose for myriads of taxi drivers, who consider customers a meaningless checklist item while taking every opportunity to kiss up to a corrupt bureaucracy. Consider all the added intrusion, snooping, and extra anti-cheating laws, and the huge potential for organized crime.
This is what "money=speech" means. Whoever pays politicians will to a large extent determine what they care about. Private money forces them to care about what their public wants.
Have you ever tested this theory, or do you just believe it so much that you make it true? I have participated in non-violent protests a few times, and I have never, ever seen the barrel of a gun pointed at me - although I was pushed with a billy club once.
Let's play with your income tax example. Try not paying the income tax (hypothetically unless you feel like making your life more interesting). At what point do you honestly think that someone is going to point a gun at you? Be honest now.
You may realize that there are people who don't pay income tax. I doubt many of them ever had guns pointed at them.
"Barrel of a gun" sounds really poetic. However, if you mean force, say force. I wouldn't argue with that. Were there no laws prior to the invention of guns?
Basically, I'm just sick and tired of this cow-replaced-by-a-sphere mentality.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I won't argue if you're claiming that you are being forced to pay taxes. I'm just sick and tired of hearing the "barrel of a gun" cliche'. You'd have to do a lot more than not pay taxes to literally see the barrel of a gun.
Of course, one big difference is that you are free to leave the country and never pay taxes. The poor woman in the example doesn't have that option. Nor does she have the option of going to jail in lieu of being raped or shot. If she opted to go to jail, then she would have other options available to her. Furthermore, if given that choice in addition to the other two, which choice do you think she would make? Now do you see the difference?
Finally, taxes are not "bad, period". Taxes are necessary to make our government work. If I tried to imagine a goverment without taxes, I end up with either anarchy, or people who are volunteering to run government out of the goodness of their heart. The latter might work for a small community, but I certainly wouldn't trust it for a large government, and I suspect you wouldn't either. Granted, one can argue about the amount of taxes, and I would agree that we are taxed too much. Naturally, most of us would not agree on what to eliminate, however, to reduce our taxes. That's why we have elected officials to make those decisions for us. Needless to say, they don't typically make very good decisions, but that's another subject.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
it just encourages them
Set your phasers on "funky"!
If money = speech, then the I suppose the people with more money are entitled to more speech.
Your thinking is exactly the opposite of what we need right now. Our country is just now coming to the shocked realization that the poor are under-represented. It's ideas like this that have taken the voice away from those "have nots".
For all of these people, democratic participation has been limited to their singlar vote- the extra speech and influence of donation is not an option.
Furthermore, why are corporate entities and interest groups protected by the constitution the same way individuals are? Again, by your rationale, the free speech of a corporation can be greater than that of any individual citizen?
I'm not claiming that these laws are all legit or good. I never did. I just said it was different. Wouldn't you prefer the option to leave a country over being raped? Wouldn't you prefer the option of jail? I think the particular example chosen, btw, is probably as close to Godwin's law as one can get without actually invoking it.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Hmm. Interesting. Problem is, I've been to jail. (For failure to pay a ticket.) Never had a gun pointed at me. Ever. Never had someone glower at me with their hands on their holstered guns. Ever.
There is a difference. Maybe some people are just to dense to understand that, though. ;)
Again, I'll acknowledge the threat of force. It's just that the stupid "barrel of a gun" cliche' is so overplayed that it's downright annoying. It's as if human cloning has been successful, and these clones all feel compelled to use this cliche' whenever they start their libertarian ranting. I've got nothing against Libertarians - any more than I do against Democrats, Republicans, or Greens.
Oh, and as for the taking your money from other people (I'm assuming you're referring to employer taxes as opposed to employee taxes), I think we probably agree that this is one of the biggest tricks the goverment plays on us. I used to write financial software, so I'm very aware of how much money is taken out before you ever see that number marked as "gross pay" on your pay check!
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
http://blog.ask.com/2005/09/we_the_bloggers.html Ask Jeeves & Bloglines Responce
http://george-harrison.info/
So much for America, "the country of the free".
I thought freedom was an essential part of america, seems not.
America is changing, and thats for the worse.
Looks like america is becoming the next Iraq, or perhaps China.
Why does all bills do reverse of what their name suggests?
The name "The Online Freedom of Speech Act" sounds like something good that would ensure freedom of speech, but it does exactly the opposite!
Congressman McDoof: "You see here in this site, which is at h-t-t-p colon backslash backslash..."
Me: "No, Congressman, that's NOT a backslash. A backslash points backwards. That's a forward slash. Just call it a slash."
. . .
If Russ Feingold, one of my Senators from Wisconsin, is involved with this in any way, I know I can talk to him about it. Not because I'm anyone special -- although I do know him -- Russ is just great like that.
-- haaz.
You and I both know they want it to happen. Too much critical thinking and honest communication going on.
Blogging because I can...
Am I to feel more trusting in the veracity of a paperless electronic vote because of this? Crony Capitalism is just another example of politics gone awry.
If one wants a high degree of confidence in the honesty of an electronic vote, they should seek out entities that have extensive experience in forcing electronic devices to show documented trails; the electronic services division of the Nevada Gaming Control Board. The Nevada election in '04 had very few problems from their voting machines with a mandated paper trail. Certainly fewer problems that other machines have caused in the past.
The problem isn't necessarily the dishonesty of Diebold, but is instead, exactly how you described it, "fat, incompetent bastards milking a government contract". Cronyism will never lead to innovative solutions.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
I'm glad somebody remembered the First, but after Roberts' appointment it may be otiose grandiloquence.
It is a little late to be watching out for the First, since the Fifth, Sixth and Thirteenth, as well as Article VI of the Constitution, have now become moot. The Chief Justice believes the President, by his say so alone, can supercede the Supreme Law of the Land.
Read it and Weep. The Dreamtime America may now be lost. And this fetishist for black satin moo moos was pitched to the citizen rubes as a "strict constitutionalist".
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
... can still be done with an absentee ballot. I showed up at the polls with mine in-hand, ready to go right back out the door and drop it in the mailbox if they had any of those paperless e-voting machines.
They actually did (Nevada), but once I noticed the machine I was on didn't have a paper printout/copy, I flagged down one of the tenders and had them void out the session and stick me on one of the others. I verified the printout, and since it was human-readable, figured that was good enough. No paper-trail == absentee ballot. Paperless voting is a very stupid/dangerous idea.