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.

Comments

And people wonder why you should be against

[hsmith]

Gov't giving out free wifi. As soon as they own the channels, they have the easy ability to censor it.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[hungrygrue]

I'd rather have the government (aka us) which is accountable to the people providing the public service than a company that is accountable to no one but its shareholders.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[Shakrai]

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).

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[hungrygrue]

and, as pointed out further down:

Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end of the following new sentence: "Such term shall not include communications over the Internet."

Hmm... Let's keep the big bad government from providing internet access, see they're evil - they're trying to protect free speech on the internet. How dare they!

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[hsmith]

Sigh.

Corporations won't stay in business if they don't provide a product they can sell and have people use. Your argument has no basis to it. If a corporation has no product and has no government granted monopoly (people are free to compete), they will never, EVER provide a product they cannot sell to stay in business.

I would never buy something that censored me. I am not forced to, where the government forces you at gunpoint at the threat of violence.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware they have guns, right?

You are aware that you can vote, right?

You are aware that voting in the U.S. reduces the complexity of all possible decisions down to essentially two choices, right?

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[hsmith]

Really? How's that connection to the internet working out for you? You might not find yourself with a choice when you consider that a lot of companies have virtual monopolies on communications products (i.e: internet access) in certain areas. Read the article I linked to in my OP and this one for some perspective. Then think about your option if that was the only ISP in town.

And do you realize, thanks to GOVERNMENT these companies have these monopolies? They grant the companies these monopolies, THAT is the reason you get limited access to them. But thankfully, I have a wide array of options to choose from. I could get FIOS, DSL, Cable, or even Dialup if I like, if there was a company "censoring" me. So your point is really moot. There are a wide variety of options to choose from. No company is censoring what I say. If one did, I would choose an alterative! Quite simple, I have no alternative to the government that is holding me.

What has our government forced you to do at gunpoint? And who do you think is really more accountable? The private company with a board of directors and shareholders or the Government that governs with the consent of the Governed who can vote their asses out of office the minute they see fit.
Please give me a list of companies that can force me to do anything? Microsoft? They can't force me to do anything, Walmart? I am not forced to go into their stores. Verizon who I have my cell phone with, they can't force me to do anything, I can use another provider if i wish. If you don't think the government forces you to do anything at gunpoint, I ask you, what happens when you don't pay your taxes? what happens if you don't follow silly traffic laws like buckling your seat belt? what happens if you jay-walk in an empty street?

You must have a strange view of society if you think the government doens't force you to do things, but corporations do.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[trurl7]

You are aware that most things you *can't* vote for?

I love this argument - ``Well, you can vote''.

1) Not with Diebold you can't. Using Diebold, the vote decides you.

2) Consider the following model: You ``elect'' a congressman. He then goes off and starts sucking political dick and voting whichever way the wind is blowing. Someone like you says: "Well, you can vote". Ok. So we vote the idiot out (probably not, but suppose). Great. Notice how the stupid law the idiot passed is still on the books? Notice how it'll take a courtcase that's appealed, re-appealed, that must get to the Supreme Court, which must decide to hear it, and only *THEN* is there a chance the Court may use the power of Judicial Review to repeal the law. That's the only forceful way. Oh yes, I hear you say, but Congress could repeal the law by itself. Yes. In theory. In practice, whichever bunch of money-grubbing assholes paid for the original law will simply bribe the next congressman you ``elect''. Excuse me. That's probably libel. I apologize. I *meant* to say, whichever bunch of money grubbing assholes paid for the original law will simply make campaign contributions, use lobbyists, and sponsor think-tanks to "re-educate" the next congressman you ``elect''.

3) Conclusion: Yes, we're aware we can vote in principle. You're apparently not aware how little effect voting actually has in practice.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[Harry Coin]

Here's a short list of things that the government forces you to do at gunpoint:

• taxpaying
• zoning
• speed limits
• vehicle inspection
• vehicle registration
• protest in "free speech" zones
• building codes
• surrender your house under eminient domain

...and that's just for starters.

Every single rule and regulation instituted by our government is solely backed by local, state, and federal police and agents. They enforce their will at the barrel of a gun. If you continually decline to do precisely what the local, state, and federal government has decreed, then you will eventually find yourself looking down the barrel of a gun. Count on it.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[benjamindees]

You're neglecting that it is always, in theory, possible to compete with a corporation. The government, on the other hand...

Even Microsoft can be held accountable by a relatively small group of individuals working in their free time. There are telecom monopolies in every state, yet there are also small ISPs and you're still free to roll-your-own if you have bad service.

We've seen where rolling-your-own government gets you.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[Dante333]

Its a lot easier to switch telcom companies that are giving you bad services, than to change your congressman or senator. The doubley crappy part about this is that we really can't count on the courts to say this is unconstituional. "Campaign Finance Reform" showed us that.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[trurl7]

If I could offer solid proof of actual voting corrupt - I'd be dead. Obvious reasons. And yes, I'm sure people on local levels would be horrified. This is the beauty of Diebold - no need to corrupt all over the place. Corrupt the 1 person who administers the counting server. (Ok, I know it's not that simple, but really, the numbers of involved people is far lower). Google for "Votergate" - it gives some lurid detail about how Diebold works. I believe this: the system *is* wildly insecure. It has no audit trail. It's counting is done in Access, for chrissakes! It's made by a company with ties to the Bush campaign and the Bush fortunes. It's president stated (though later retracted) "We'll hand Ohio over to Bush". The systems were used in a politically charged elections during the most blatantly corrupt administration in relatively recent memory. If I could get you solid evidence that someone changed the numbers, I would. I honestly would. But that's why it's called "conspiracy". If they've done their job well, there is no proof. I am aware of the fundamental weakness of circumstantial evidence. But I hope you will agree that the motive and the means were there, and opporutnities can be made.

Finally, making a difference. That's a beautiful thought. As well as your having actually convinced ``several'' people. I mean that sincerely. You get right at the root of the problem. Education. However, it is not in the interests of the established powers that people should think and vote. Then, the people might actually make a difference. They might throw the bunch of rotten scoundrels in Federal Pound-You-In-The-Ass prison for committing high treason and conspiracy against the People of the United States (notice how the accusations are always "Treason against the Government of the United States" or "Conspiracy to wage war against the Government of the United States"?) But have you also noticed how there is a steady policy of making people stupid, blindly accepting, and brainwashed using the media? How media firms research the best psychoanalytical means of convincing people to do this or that? How opinions can be shaped and bought? How the media is a many multi-billion dollar business? I'm sorry, but you and I don't have the reasources to take that on.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[qkslvrwolf]

Apparently you live in the minority areas of the US where you actually can just switch teleco. For instance, wehre i live, my only option is SBC. Where most of my friends live, its charter. For some of my other friends, its "Sunflower Cable and Phone". I don't actually know anyone who has this choice. And its all thanks to the republicans and their "big media is good for everyone" bullshit myth. Which has also given us the current crop of uber conservative MSM, etc etc etc.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[qkslvrwolf]

Well, then start trying to convince people to
1) Stop voting for people who have been in office longer than 10 years.
2) Stop voting for anyone with ties to big buisness.
3) Stop voting for anyone who inherited their wealth.
4) Stop voting for anyone with a law background.
5) Stop voting for anyone who has family closer than 2 generations who was in politics.
6) Stop voting for republicans.
7) Stop voting for democrats.
8) Start voting for independents who fit the above criteria and whose views and record you support.

The system is changeable, but unfortunately it'll have to get a lot worse before it penetrates the thick skulls of the complacent.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[TheOrange]

Some laws, no matter how stupid they may seem to you, really are for your own good.
This is sarcasm right?

I mean you wouldn't be so stupid as to justify laws in that fashion would you? Can you imagine laws forcing you to tie your shoes? Make your bed maybe? How about eat your breakfast, or exercise. I know, a law that says you shouldn't eat to many big macs, or drink soda.

This discussion started based on soon to be restrictions on political speech. Do you think some of the justification of those laws will be for our own good? I do. Do you know where the legislative branch can shove their laws abridging political discourse? Yeah, so do I.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[Shihar]

I think you miss the parents point. Yes, the government DOES get you to do things with the threat of violence. If you don't pay your taxes, the IRS will try and confiscate your property. If you refuse to let them take your property, they will throw you in jail. If you refuse to go to jail, guns come out and they drag you to jail. A government IS that legalized use of violence. All power of the government stems from the fact that if you refuse to follow its mandates, a few guys with guns will show up at your house and do something unpleasant.

The same thing goes with getting a speeding ticket. If I am cruising down a flat empty country highway and all of a sudden a police car shows up behind me, the only thing that keeps me from utterly ignoring him enforcing a stupid law for a wide open flat highway is the fact that if I just keep driving, he is going to use violence against me. The threat of violence is what makes people obediently pull over for speeding tickets, not some sense of civil obligation.

Now, the government's use of violence isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think it is good that if someone murders my mother, guys empowered to use violence by the government (police) go after the murder. That said, it is important to realize that a government solution to any problem is inherently revolves around the authorization of violence. That is where all power of the government stems from. Once you recognize that, you should pause before advocating any government solution. Ask yourself if the problem you are trying to solve really justifies the use of the threat of violence or use of violence upon your fellow humans. Ask yourself if you truly believe that coercion using the threat of violence is worthwhile in this instance.

I am not saying that we need to abolish taxes, the federal government, or anything of that nature. I am saying that before we merrily swing the government around like a sledge hammer trying to solve problems that we consider fully what it is you propose.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[Anonymous Coward]

In 18th century usage, "well regulated" meant well functioning, not government-controlled. The word militia included pretty much every able-bodied adult male. Nowadays it should be more inclusive of course.

If "we the people" have no inherent right to bear arms, then neither does any government because its powers are merely a delegated subset of our natural rights.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[lynx_user_abroad]

Care to offer some proof?

You misunderstand the problem. You are asking for proof of a rigged election, and I agree a rigged election is damaging to a democracy, but a rigged election is not the only thing which can damage a democracy. A voting populous which has lost confidence in the reliability of the voting process is as damaging to a democracy as the rigging of the election itself. And you don't need anyone to offer you proof that our confidence is shaken; your response to the orginal poster stands as that.

...there are a lot of good people running elections on the state and local level and they would be horrified and outraged if it was ever discovered that a vendor was rigging votes.

I'm sure they would be. I'm hoping they would be horrified and outraged even if it were their favored candidate who won. But you're putting an awful lot of reliance onto a system which appears to have been set up for the purpose of creating a riggable system. Electronic voting systems replace the evidence of a ballot with the testimony of a machine. And I for one cannot understand why we've suddenly decided, where voting is concerned, that testimony should be trusted as much as hard evidence. Consider:

This is a summary of voter registrations for 2004 in Chatham county North Carolina. It shows about 16K registered Democrats, about 9K registered Republicans, and about 6K unaffiliated or independent voters.

A reasonable person would conclude from these public records that Chatham county leans Democratic. Some might say heavily.

It wouldn't surprise anyone, then, when John Kerry carried the county, and the resultsfrom the election (forgive their broken HTML) show this to be the case. What's interesting is the vote summary. Kerry beat Bush by 5 votes.

Game theory teaches us that if you're planning to rig an election, you don't add votes in precincts where you will win, but rather in precincts where you will lose, with the goal of making the race close but still a loss. Your opponent is not going to ask for a recount in places where he won, especially if he only won by a small margin.

In the national election, it doesn't matter squat that John Kerry won Chatham county North Carolina, (except perhaps to placate those Dems living in Chatham); the only thing that matters in the presidental election is who had the overall greatest vote.

Why don't you go out in the World and try to convince the half of your neighbors that don't bother to vote that it would be worthwhile.

I applaude you sentiment, but perhaps now you can understand how even a plan such as this is dependent on a trustable balloting system. Perhaps the non-voting half were convinced in the last election, and we're where we are today anyway.

But as for proof, I can no more offer evidence that the vote was rigged than I can offer evidence that it wasn't. And that should concen both the winners and the losers.

Money = Expression = Speech

[dada21]

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.

Re:Money = Expression = Speech

[untaken_name]

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.

Check your premise. I seriously doubt these effects were unintended.

Re:Money = Expression = Speech

[StrawberryFrog]

Repeal all donation restrictions and dismantle the FEC. Allow anyone (including foreigners and corporations) to finance any candidate in any amount

So, what you're saying is that if it's legalised it's no longer corruption? Sounds barking mad to me. Name one country that sucessfully operates in this manner.

Re:Money = Expression = Speech

[stlhawkeye]

4. Allow any candidate that can get on a ballot to join in any government-funded debate.

Therein lay the problem. Ballots used to not require a "getting onto." You just wrote down the name of the guy you were voting for. The problem, of course, is mis-spellings, illegible handwriting, smudged ink, etc. So we adopted a new type of ballot and a large set of rules about what it takes to be on it for each state. Both Republicans and Democrats warmly embrace this system and prop it up, because without it they'd have been resigned the dustbin of history decades ago. Notice that the Republicans were the large major party to come into any prominence in America? There were some notable other third parties, like the Bull Moose and Granger business, but right around the turn of the century (i.e, 100 years ago-ish), third parties really dried up and became impotent. It's not a coincidence that the United States adopted the pre-printed balloting system for the 1892 election.

Re:Money = Expression = Speech

[TheRealMindChild]

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.

Are you kidding me? Politians are very much like (to use some imagery that you people can relate to) . You need/want a feature, you are willing to throw some money at it to make it happen, so you approach said open source project leader and say, "I am willing to donate 6 million dollars to your cause if you are willing to take care of our needs in terms of feature X". You say no, you get no money.

Now let us make this example with say... a Pennsylvania Senator... Comcast approaches said senator and says "I see you are about to run for office again... I am willing to put some money toward your cause, if you can make our 'zoning issues' go away". "No" means no money. You think that is ok? I sure the hell dont.

Re:Money = Expression = Speech

[SirChive]

"Campaign Donations are the ultimate form of free speech" This is possibly the single most idiotic statement I've seen this week.

Spending money does not equal speech. Buying influence DOES NOT equal freedom.

Your ridiculous premise leads to nothing except government by and for the rich.

The root of the corruption of our political system is corporate influence. Eliminate that and you will take a huge step towards restoring political power to the people. But it won't happen because corporations and politicians are entwined in an unholy dance of power and wealth.

Re:Money = Expression = Speech

[i_should_be_working]

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

Some places (like Canada) are solving the problem by going in the opposite direction. Limit campaign financing serverely so that even those small third (fourth, fifth, sixth) parties can spend just as much on their campaign as the big two.

I prefer this way. After all, just because there's no limit to donations surely doesn't guarantee equal footing for the smaller parties. Especially if they had little money to begin with. No advertising -> no public awareness -> no donations.

Re:Money = Expression = Speech

[bedroll]

If you really want to fix the system you would take away some of the rights afforded to corporations. Corporations have only financial interests in mind, nothing social or moral. Our representatives are supposed to be just that: ours, not the corporations. Even if corporations may have our financial interests in mind (third to their executives first and their stockholders second) they clearly do not represent the people, nor are they people in themselves.

Campaigns should only be able to be financed by individuals and non-profit groups. It should also be a criminal act to release the identities of contributors except under subpoena or to an oversight committee. This would help to prevent strong-arming. If this were the case then the social and moral aspects of society will start to become more important to our representatives, and they would truly start representing the people they serve.

We would still need laws to govern this, and laws to prevent only the wealthy and powerful to be heard. We wouldn't have to worry as much about repressing speech, though, because it would be much more likely that it was the view of an individual being expressed.

Re:Money = Expression = Speech

[ScentCone]

Now you're getting it. A less effective government will be less intrusive, and that's Good.

Yes, generally less activity (by last-50-years historical standards) on the part of the federal government is a good thing. But "less effective" != "less intrusive," I think.

Less intrusive is less intrusive. More effective at doing what needs to be done so they don't have to be intrusive is the Good Thing.

But a congress too busy to do anything well because it's just arguing with itself is still going to do things, just Very Badly (read: worse than now). With my money.

Oh no!

[elphkotm]

I like how everyone is so for campaign finance reform until it affects their little part of the world. How dare they!

Excuse me mother fuckers

[the_2nd_coming]

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.

Court asking for regulations?

[Jumbo Jimbo]

I was confused by one of the lines from the post, taken from the article.

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).

Free Speech Must Be Limited and Controlled

[SirChive]

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.

Re:Free Speech Must Be Limited and Controlled

[stlhawkeye]

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.

In other words, we haven't lost our right to assemble. What we've lost is the right to assemble wherever the fuck we want, which is a Good Thing, because until some limits were in place, "peaceful" assemblies of pro-life nutjobs would canvas abortion clinics and harrass women going in and coming out. I'm in favor of fencing people like this off across the street so that private citizens can engage in private business without being hassled.

Meanwhile 80% of Americans are oblivious to the massive increase in Federal power.

I think 80% of Americans just don't care whether it's Republicans or Democrats bloating federal government and trampling upon their rights. Most of them don't run blogs, don't protest anything, don't watch public TV. Most citizens of most countries are not engaged in the political process beyond inheriting opinions from their family and friends and reciting them when called upon. Lots of people don't even do that much. It's human nature to not care when things that don't impact your lifestyle directly are changed. This is why it's so easy to tax the shit out of corporations and rich people. None of us are corporate board members or rich people, so why the hell would we care what the government does to them? Gotta pay for something? Tax rich people! Because 99.92% of us are NOT rich and we don't care, and it satisfies, frankly, a jealous instinct to see those snotty bastards with their Grey Poupon and luxury cars having to hand over more of their income.

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.

Why would they care about civil rights they never execute? I'm not defending civic apathy, don't misunderstand, but you sound very frustrated and perplexed about this, and I don't think it's a difficult issue. People don't care because it has a negligable direct impact on their lifestyle. When Desperate Housewives is interrupted for a late-breaking news bulliten about weather, people get irate. Federal and state congresses, meanwhile, pass increasingly stupid and odious laws that amount to more government, more wasted money, and more people who work or the state, and nobody cares. We have a massive infrastructure of vehicle emissions testing here in St. Louis, that involves dozens of testing facilities, hundreds of employees, an accounting department to handle receipts, and all kinds of garbage to make sure that our cars aren't polluting too much. After running the program it was determined that it has had no effect on the quality of the air here. So what are they doing? Leaving it to run, because it generates income, and in a few more years, it'll bring in more to the government than it has cost so far.

That's government. And people don't care because they only have to go through this Mickey Mouse charade of emissions testing once every two years. But you don't dare interrupt House to tell me about a goddam tornado.

Oh boy

[Junior J. Junior III]

I can hardly wait for the next 18 months of C-SPAN, in which completely clueless congressional representatives and senators answer once and for all the question of "What is a blog?" It's not as though there's a clear line of demarkcation here. The definition they eventually settle on will necessarily be fundamentally broken, rife with false negatives as well as false positives.

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:

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.

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.

Re:campaign finance = freedom of speech?

[Surt]

Just in case you're not kidding, campaign finance laws restrict the forums in which you are allowed to communicate, and the messages you are allowed to communicate in those forums.

Can vote isn't same as actually voting

[Shivetya]

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.

Re:He who counts the votes...

[Shakrai]

Diebold has more power than we do.

I guess I missed the headline about Diebold being mandated in every state and county in the Union then. I guess all those elections officials are probably on the Diebold payroll too. Damn and my next door neighbor seemed like such a nice gal too....

Your vote, it is worthless, and has been for a good eight years or so.

I'll remember that the next time we have a school budget that's decided by six votes. Or the next time our assembly race is decided by 90 votes out of a few thousand.

People with your attitude are more dangerous then any bought off Congressman. Lose some cynicism and try to work to change what you don't like about our country/government.

Barrel of a gun

[benhocking]

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'.

Re:Barrel of a gun

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

And rape is only violent if the victim resists or threatens violence herself! Good point! As long as the victim just sits there and takes it, they probably won't get bruised at all. I love how you just broke everything down so logically!

What good is "free speech"?

[X.25]

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.

Get an original thought

[benhocking]

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.

Re:campaign finance = freedom of speech?

[RexRhino]

Because how are you going to pay for pamphlets, radio commercials, tv commericals? How are you going to pay to travel around the country to make speeches? How are you going to pay for your website bill? All of this stuff is expensive.

A limit on the money you can spend or accept in donations is a limit on freedom of speech.

When the government says that a party can only accept $1000 donation per person per year, that is great for the two mega-giant political parties who have millions of memebers. But if I am starting a new party, and I get together with 20 other people to start the organization, our organization is limited in resources to $20,000 a year, by law. Now, tell me, how exactly is our party supposed to compete with the two big parties when limited to $20,000 year? (and doesn't just include money... if a person advertises us on a blog, if a person allows us to stay at their house for free when we are traveling the country, if someone lends us PA equipment so we can make a speech, we have to calculate the value of that, and it is counted against that $20,000.)

Essentially, in election time, any speech that is not endorced by one of the two big parties, is illegal. And this is all done using "capaign finance" laws.