Bloggers Exempted From Campaign Laws

MaceyHW writes "The Federal Election Commission ruled today that the only online political activity subject to Campaign Finance Laws are paid advertisements on a third party site. Today's ruling extended the regulations to paid advertising as required by a 2004 Federal Court ruling, but explicitly exempted all other forms of online activity: 'For example, the rule says individuals can use union or corporate computers or other electronic devices for political activity, as long they do it on their own time and are not coerced to engage in such activity by the union or corporation. Bloggers would be entitled to the same exemption from the campaign finance law that newspapers and other traditional forms of media receive. "There will be no second class citizens among members of the media," [FEC Chairman Michael T.] Toner said.'"

Comments

Ack! Thpppt!

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote Bill -n- Opus, 08!

Heh...

[Otter]

There will be no second class citizens among members of the media," [FEC Chairman Michael T.] Toner said.

Poor Michael Toner -- you know half his emails get bounced by spam filters. He should change it to T0n3r.

Thanks for the small favors

[jmorris42]

Of course the problem is that the question had to be settled by the FEC in the first place. It should be a no brainer, since after all; "Congress shall make no law...."

I await the day when we get enough strict constructionists on the Supreme Court to reverse their previous bad decisions, sweeping away McCain Fiengold and most other 'Campaign Finance Laws' that aren't limited to mandatory disclosure requirements. And even those have to go eventually, after all why can't someone donate anonymously? Yes we voters should normally be highly suspiscous of a candidate funded anonymously but I can theorize situations where it might be acceptable.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Anonymous Coward]

More to the point, how are we supposed to quantify WoW Gold we donate to the party's campaign?

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

You do not have a first ammendment right to give money to your candidate for the very reason that Money IS speech. The person with the most money has more of a voice, violating the right to equal representation of the other people in the district.

Not all exercises of a right are protected exercises: if that exercise infringes upon the rights of others then it is NOT protected - and SHOULD NOT BE.

The only way to remove the corporate-whore money culture from washington is to REMOVE ALL INDIVIDUAL FUNDING of Candidates. All money for an election should go into one pool, then all the candidates on the ballot should get an equal proportion. Want your candidate to be heard more? ok, but all the others have to be too - if your so convinced of the merits of your candidate than this shouldn't bother you at all.

At the same time we should switch to instant-runoff voting, and completely open sourced Evoting machines with strict auditing of code, and voter-confirmed paper audit.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I await the day when we get enough strict constructionists on the Supreme Court to reverse their previous bad decisions, sweeping away McCain Fiengold and most other 'Campaign Finance Laws' that aren't limited to mandatory disclosure requirements. And even those have to go eventually...

They tried that already. It was called facisim.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress shall make no law what?

Congress shall make no law concerning freedom of the press and speech, but the consititution does not forbid congress from making laws that say who can donate what to a political campaign.

The Government has tried to infringe on the First ammendment with some campaign finance law, but to go the other directiona and say the consitution limits congress to regulating disclosure and nothing more is quite a stretch.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Well, there's always the other opinion that any donation of money at all is bribery- pure and simple. I think that's what would result from your idea- a large amount of blatent bribery.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I'd say let's take it to the obvious conclusion- all money spent on political campagins is not speech, and is instead bribery.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[hunterx11]

I can theorize situations where everybody holds hands and gets along and lives happily in an anarchistic Communist utopia. But the Libertarian notion that you can eliminate the influence of money in politics is no less naive than the Marxist assumption that a dictatorship of the proletariat will gave way to an egalitarian state.

Yes, regulations on campaign financing should always keep in mind the rights of the contributors. But eliminating such regulation altogether isn't freedom--it's politics for sale, and no amount of ideological handwaving can escape this fact.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[exi1ed0ne]

. . .the consititution does not forbid congress from making laws that say who can donate what to a political campaign.

Just to be nit-picky. . . The Constitution is a document of enumerated powers. That means that unless it is in there, Congress can't do it. Nothing in Article I says anything about campaign financing, although it does list the trivial job of showing up one day a year. Coupled with Amendments 9 and 10, Congress just doesn't have the authority:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[amliebsch]

This is not really about giving cash to candidates. Even under your scenario: suppose all candidates are funded equally from a public pool. I, a private citizen, wish to dedicate my time and my checking account to persuading as many people as possible that candidate X is the best choice. Under your proposed system, is this permissible? Does it change if I encourage others to join me? If I encourage others to help me by volunteering? Help me with cash donations? What if I voluntarily do the bidding of the campaign manager? What if I try to guess what the campaign manager wants, and do it? What if I take money from the campaign?

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[bill_kress]

Although I completely agree with you, I can't correlate your post with the fact that I believe bloggers should not be subject to any limitations on what they blog about.

For that matter, publishers should be able to publish their opinion on political candidates.

How do we ensure that these "Opinions" don't become paid advertisements?

A serious question for the parent since you are passionate about the issue and we seem to have similar views.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[wannabe-retiree]

"The person with the most money has more of a voice, violating the right to equal representation of the other people in the district."

That's quite a stretch. When person A has more of something than person B, YES, there is inequality, but NO it does not mean that person B's rights are being violated. There's a difference.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[thefirelane]

The only way to remove the corporate-whore money culture from washington is to REMOVE ALL INDIVIDUAL FUNDING of Candidates

Wow, what a terrible idea. Like most attempts at regulating this, it won't change anything, just slightly alter the way its done. Under this system, expect to see ads like this:

"Hi, my name is so and so, I personally enjoy extolling the virtues of candidate X.....virtue virtue virtue.... if you enjoy hearing me speak, please give me money.

I think, however, it would be a good idea to clasify corporate campaign donations as 'commerical speech' since they have obvious commercial intents. Such speech can be regulated heavily.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Boronx]

"Congress shall make no law...."

In the consitution:

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.

Not in the constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting donations to political campaigns.

The Government has trampled on our 1st Ammend. rights, but to say that consitutionally they can only go so far as to regulate disclosure is a stretch.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the specific reason you do get protection for campaign contributions is because the court has ruled that contributions are a form of expression (i.e. money = speech). While I think you're right that money is really the power to amplify speech rather than expression in itself, and therefore should be subject to regulation, the law does not agree.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[vux984]

All money for an election should go into one pool, then all the candidates on the ballot should get an equal proportion. Want your candidate to be heard more? ok, but all the others have to be too - if your so convinced of the merits of your candidate than this shouldn't bother you at all.

What makes you think campaign contributors are convinced of the merits of their candidates? Quite the opposite is true really, most campaign contributors know full well that what they want from their candidate is in their own best interests, and not in the best interests of the people in general.

Corporations in particular don't give a crap about whats best for the electorate. Their millions in donations are, first to convince a candidate to turn his back on the people, and second to win that candidate the election.

They likely wouldn't contribute any money at all in your system... which might very well be a positive side-effect. But its important to realize that probably the vast majority of all contributions are to support a candidate who will represent the contributors private agenda -- not because they are convinced that if the public could be made aware of his merits that they would select him.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Jeffrey Baker]

Here's the thing. On television and radio, you can buy advertising time to the exclusion of the other party. This makes television and radio unlike "speech". No matter how much you speak, you can't keep the other guy from speaking. And no matter how much bandwidth you buy for your website, you can hardly expect to keep the next guy from opening his website.

Conclusion: Internet like speech. Television, radio unlike speech. Hence the reason the FEC regulates certain things and not others.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[sbrown123]

All your ideas are okay under the current campaign finance rules. You can go buy commercials, put posters up, write a blog, etc as and individual. But to give unlimited contributions directly to a presidental canidate or political party is wrong.

And to add to the parent posters idea, I think political parties, presidents, and its members should be barred from doing fund raisers for their party. Our president, when not hanging out at his Texas ranch (where he spends the majority of his time) spends quite a bit of his time running around to special fund raisers for the Republican party. And before you think this is a Bush bash: Clinton did it while he was president and STILL does it to this day.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[that_xmas]

The only problem with the system you suggest is that it favors the incumbents. Without cold, hard cash there is no way an unknown, but otherwise intelligent and capable person can run for a government office.

For example, Vermont has a cap on spending in local government races. Part of that cap includes a mileage reimbursement rate for driving your own car. Therefore, candidates in statewide or even countywide elections can blow their spending cap simply by driving from town to town to meet the voters.

Finally, money is not speech. Speech is speech. Money is money. By limiting how much money individuals can give to candidates you invite corruption instead of hindering it. In any case, political speech in support of a candidate is exactly the type of speech that should be most free. If I want to spend 10 million dollars to put ad in the media nationwide about how Presidential Candidate X slept with my sister, or shot my dog, or redirected money from a trust fund into his own company, HookersAndBlow Inc., I should be able.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in the constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting donations to political campaigns.

You're reading it wrong. Try this:

Not in the constitution:

Congress shall have the power to regulate political campaigns.

If you don't like it, move to a state where the state government has exercised its power to regulate political campaigns, or petition your state government to do the same. Consider checking with the state's Constitution before doing so, as it might also be similarly restricted.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[spiritraveller]

I await the day when we get enough strict constructionists on the Supreme Court ...

There are no strict constructionists on the Supreme Court and there never will be, because there is no such thing as a strict constructionist. When a judge thinks the text is ambiguous he makes a decision based on what he thinks is right. Sometimes, they will even do this when people disagree on whether the text is ambiguous.

Scalia has done this. Thomas has done this. Rhenquist did it. Every single one of them has done it.

So have fun waiting on your strict constructionists. You might as well wait for Godot.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[cpt kangarooski]

I agree, although the last people I want to see on the bench are strict constructionists.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[jmorris42]

> But the Libertarian notion that you can eliminate the influence of money in politics is no
> less naive than the Marxist assumption that a dictatorship of the proletariat will gave way
> to an egalitarian state.

You assume we WANT to eliminate the influence of money. Not at all, we couldn't care less. Speech == money, money == speech, the two are interchangable and the more of both the better. As a nation we currently spend less electing a POTUS than deciding Coke vs. Pepsi or Tastes Great vs Less Filling.. As a voter I couldn't care less if a candidate is getting a crapload of money to buy advertising with. I do care WHERE the crapload of money is coming from. If it is from people and/or organizations I don't agree with it counts against the candidate, but if the contributions are politically/philosophically in sync my my own views I'd think it was great.

But the notion that regulating money isn't regulating speech requires Newthink. Other than standing on a soapbox in the park, any political speech has a cost in cash. Regulating the flow of cash by definition regulates the free flow of political speech.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[griffjon]

While I overall agree with you, I would have very much liked it if bloggers were held to the same standard and were expected and required to disclose who, if anyone, was giving them money. Unfortunately we had on the table Crazy Draconian Measures or Jack Shit, so thankfully Jack Shit won.

Of course, the last election proved that even newspaper columnists were not disclosing that they were paid tools even as they were presenting themselves as independent, reasonably unbiased news sources.

And then there's FOX.

Actually, I just wish there was some certification (say, calling yourself a news program) that required you to be factual...

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[eck011219]

Er ... I agree with your first statement, though would add the next word:

"Congress shall make no law RESTRICTING ..."

The point of the Constitution is to protect citizens, not politicians. I know, I know, politicians are citizens. But really, they take on a different role when they enter a race. Most politicians run for office based on integrity and policy, so they themselves offer up their own personal character for public analysis.

Given what has happened in the past, say, fifteen years, McCain-Feingold is an unfortunate necessity. People are willing to lie about their own (or their candidates') integrity in order to gain office. Moreover, people are willing to work very hard to obfuscate their own status as donors. I classify myself as a moderate liberal, and don't typically go in for legally-based restrictions on what people can do with their bucks. But the fact that people are lying willy-nilly about who they are and their status as donors makes me think that McCain-Feingold needs to happen. Even if it gets overturned later (though let's hope it's properly structured so it doesn't get overturned OR restrict the rights of people who want to donate money to candidates that they believe to be good for us all), it will send a message that the bullshit needs to stop and the jerks will get caught.

Here in Illinois, our previous Governor's trial is currently in jury deliberation. And our current Governor, who again won the primary last week, is in constant threat of getting bogged down in legal silliness himself. So I wish I could thumb my nose at the world, but we suck at this stuff around here. The point is that Congress sadly HAS to make laws because no one can win if they play by the ethical rules upon which our country was founded.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[dada21]

I agree partially but mostly disagree with you.

You do not have a first ammendment right to give money to your candidate for the very reason that Money IS speech

Actually, money is time -- you get money when you save someone time in doing a service or providing them a product. The money they give you their time saved -- they received in doing the same thing for someone else. Rothbard's (free e-)book available here offers a simple explanation of what money is.

Because money is my time saved, I should be free to use my time (or time saved) as I want as long as I don't directly use that time to harm someone's person or property. If I want to use my time saved ("money") to promote something, I should be free to.

The difficulty I have with campaign finance laws is that they were written specifically to prevent me from using that time saved in the way I want to. They were written to keep both parties more powerful than the individual, and to also block any third party from using a smaller crowd of individuals to finance their elections.

The biggest problem with government today is that it is too powerful, taking over rights left to the individual. When a government gets powerful, it attracts the time-saved ("money") from powerful individuals. It uses this over-broad power to harm the masses at the profit of the few.

If you want to fix the system, you need to remove the powers they've taken against their Constitutional and ethical limits. Ridding Congress and the Executive Branch of their excessive powers will remove most people's desires to finance the elections in order to get favoritism-treatment (ie, cronyism).

The idea of public funding is bad because there are other laws preventing most people from getting on a ballot. The problem is not the funding, the problem is the power given to the elected.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[jmorris42]

> You do not have a first ammendment right to give money to your candidate for the very
> reason that Money IS speech.

Wow, that is doublethink of a quality not seen (other than as deliberate satire) outside of Daily Kos. You admit that money IS speech yet somehow in the same breath claim that makes it speech NOT protected by the 1st Amendment. Sorry, if it is speech then "Congress shall make NO law...."

Yes, some people, some causes, will have more money than other people or causes. Some political movements will have more wealthy donors within it, some will have more rabid volunteers, others will have famous people who can act as effective spokesmen for their causes. Yet so long as all are men[1] are equal before the law, all have but one vote and all may speak freely without fear of government reprisal then we have a free and fair political process.

[1] The word 'men' as used here isn't meant to imply women don't have the same rights, just refusing to bow to political correctness and use tortured language constructs to get around English's historical artifacts.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if I grant you the premise of money = speech, where does the constitution grant the right of equal representation of speech?

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

What makes you think campaign contributors are convinced of the merits of their candidates? Quite the opposite is true really, most campaign contributors know full well that what they want from their candidate is in their own best interests, and not in the best interests of the people in general.

That was exactly my point.

They likely wouldn't contribute any money at all in your system... which might very well be a positive side-effect.

exactomundo

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

In practice you'll find that my fundamental assertion is correct for the overwhelming majority of cases.

More money = more representation in the candidates votes - the people with no money get no representation beyond the hotbrand issues which most of them aren't even fully informed enough on to make the correct decision and push their representative into having to make a poor one.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

That would be considered a campaign contribution in-kind - the equivilent of giving money.

no private comercials could be run naming or picturing a specific candidate - the most specific they could be is "support the candidate that supports concept-x"

It's the only possible way I see ending the culture of bribery in washington

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[amliebsch]

All your ideas are okay under the current campaign finance rules.

No, they're not all okay, that's what McCain Feingold is all about! For example, you can make som kinds of independent expenditures (so-called "soft money"), but you can't coordinate with the campaign while doing so. Also, there are now limits to what you can do within a certain time period of the election, and so on.

But to give unlimited contributions directly to a presidental canidate or political party is wrong.

There are already laws that govern how much you can donate directly to a campaign (it's not a whole lot.) As for donations to the party organizations, why should giving money to them be different than giving money to any other private organization?

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

The only problem with the system you suggest is that it favors the incumbents. Without cold, hard cash there is no way an unknown, but otherwise intelligent and capable person can run for a government office.

No it doesn't because the incumbancy advantage is removed. I think you misunderstood my idea.

Say the race is for president and the pool of money is $100m. There are three candidates -
The Incumbent
Challenger A
Challenger B

All three get 1/3 of $100m to spend on their campaign - no private money [including their own] is allowed.

In any case, political speech in support of a candidate is exactly the type of speech that should be most free.

As you said - money is money and speech is speech - not one in the same by your own assertion. So by your assertion this statement is off-base.

My assertion is otherwise. All speech should be free so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others - THIS form of speech - campaign contributions - DOES infring upon the rights of others.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[jmorris42]

> On television and radio, you can buy advertising time to the exclusion of the other party.

In theory perhaps, but in reality I doubt it would ever be a problem. If one side was so well funded it could afford to replace most television programming with campaign infomercials, outbidding the opposing camp for the time no less, then it is a virtual certainty that side is probably going to carry the day some election time. Sorry if that offends your egalitarian sensibilities but that is reality for you.

> Conclusion: Internet like speech. Television, radio unlike speech. Hence the reason the
> FEC regulates certain things and not others.

Ok, and explain the FEC's justification for regulating billboards, newspaper advertising, magazine advertising, direct mail campaigns, Internet banner adverstising, phone banks, door to door campaigning, floating blimps carrying a message, yard signs, etc, etc. I won't hold my breath waiting, because there isn't any justification other than the side in power at the time thought the regulation would help their candidates get elected.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

Wow, that is doublethink of a quality not seen (other than as deliberate satire) outside of Daily Kos.

that is both an argumentum ad hominem, and you are ignoring the rest of the statement that explains that - allow me to state it again: The person with the most money has more of a voice, violating the right to equal representation of the other people in the district.

This is an issue BEYOND partisanship, and you just revealed yourself as not being able to raise above partisanship ever - not even when the pressing need of your country is screaming out for a solution to the culture of corruption in bribery that is gripping washington today and has for many yeas - but is particularily bad under the current crop of criminals.

Perhaps this is why you refuse to see the simple truth of the farce that is "one man, one vote" so long as individual campaign contributions are allowed: because it has put into power those who hold your authoritarian viewpont.

You admit that money IS speech yet somehow in the same breath claim that makes it speech NOT protected by the 1st Amendment. Sorry, if it is speech then "Congress shall make NO law...."

You clearly don't understand the difference between rights and license. "Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of speech" - however your freedom of speech does not include actions which deny others their equal representation in the government which is what campaign contributions are.

Yet so long as all are men are equal before the law, all have but one vote and all may speak freely without fear of government reprisal then we have a free and fair political process.

Individual campaign contributions to individual candidates PREVENTS all men being qual and all having but one vote - those with more money have MORE votes, those with no money have but one.

To ignore this simple truth is to ignore history and ignore the present.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Captain_Biggles]

The only way to remove the corporate-whore money culture from washington is to REMOVE ALL INDIVIDUAL FUNDING of Candidates.

Actually, there is another way -- remove most of the motivation for bribery.

Influence peddling is the root of the problem. If a wealthy donor believes that Senator Jones can pull some strings on an important issue in exchange for $5 million, then that donor will find a way to get that money into Senator Jones' pocket, campaign finance laws be damned; just as water finds a way to flow downhill.

So attack the first cause of all this nonsense and reduce the amount of influence which can be peddled, by reducing the size and scope of government (particularly at the federal level). The less power a government official holds, the less attractive he becomes as a potential recipient of bribes or campaign financing.

Of course, actually doing this is much harder than simply passing another campaign finance law, but it's also more effective, and has less impact on everyone's rights to boot. The current situation of stratifying political speech based on completely arbitrary criteria is ridiculous in the extreme.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[mudetroit]

More money = more representation in the candidates votes

You know I know there are a lot of politicians this is certainly true for. But at the same time why do we have to gear the system to the lowest of the low? They will find the way to get their perks regardless, and by doing this you potentially stop a truly good candidate from getting the most support they could.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[hunterx11]

If people have a right to free speech, and money is speech, doesn't that mean that the arguments of those in favor of forcing broadcasters to give airtime to people without compensation are valid?

Money is power. People make money being good (or bad) businessmen, but it says nothing about their politics. You can aid a political campaign by giving money or endorsements. Notice that the latter requires that people actually care about what you have to say, that is, it is earned power. Money is earned economic power, but it is unearned political power. Can you honestly say that a plutocracy is a good form of government?

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[twiddlingbits]

If you want to stop this, then say there is a time period, say 60 days before each election that currently elected members can campaign/fund raise for the candidate/party. Lots of presidents spend time away from DC (it sucks there!), but the Government is still with them. Each presidential retreat has excellent communications just as if he was at the White House. It's also a way to entertain people out of the eyes of everyone in Washington or discuss sensitive issues without "leaks" 15 minutes later.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Jeffrey Baker]

Your neat little worldview doesn't match reality. Neither side was "in power" when the regulations where passed. The latest and most significant restrictions were passed by a Republican-controlled House and Democratic-controlled Senate, signed by a Democratic President, and approved by a split Supreme Court.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LihTox]

>>The only problem with the system you suggest is that it favors the incumbents. Without cold, hard cash there is no way an unknown, but otherwise intelligent and capable person can run for a government office.

>No it doesn't because the incumbancy advantage is removed. I think you misunderstood my idea.
>Say the race is for president and the pool of money is $100m. There are three candidates...All three get 1/3 of $100m to spend on their campaign - no private money [including their own] is allowed.

But suppose the two challengers are unknown outside of their hometown; they have a natural disadvantage over the incumbent, who is presumably fairly well-known by his/her constituents. If I personally had run for President against Dubya, for instance, I would have needed to spend most of my funding just to make people aware of my existence, while Dubya, already well-known, could have used his funding to attack me, etc.

It just seems to me that there is no simple solution to the campaign finance issue. Rather than trying to keep money out of campaigns, there's something we can do to make money less influential in campaigns, where spending more money would not automatically give a candidate an edge. If our culture saw excessive expenditures on the part of a candidate as trying to "buy the election", then spending might have a detrimental effect. But it doesn't seem to work that way, alas.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha ha ha, you think different court justices will result in more freedoms. They will merely result in a different laws that take away rights in different ways.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[gfxguy]

In practice you'll find that my fundamental assertion is correct for the overwhelming majority of cases.

I can't think of any good examples of where someone's rights were infringed upon because someone else was, for whatever reason, able to excercise that same right more. Can you give me any real, relevent examples?

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[gfxguy]

Remind me which part of the constitution guarantees the rights of political candidates on the campaign trail equal representation?

You couldn't possibly equate having more advertising time with equal representation under the law...

If you're talking about any laws created after the constitution that somehow limit political campaigning, they're ALL unconstitutional.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Anonymous Coward]

Buckley v. Vallejo. Campaign contributions are speech. The justification for limiting them is to avoid the appearance of corruption; but the relevance to free speech was acknowledged.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[gfxguy]

We must have radically different ideas of what facism is, then. Somehow completely free speech and the upholding of our constitution is facism...

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

Orrin Hatch

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Stonehand]

Merely disagreeing with somebody or speaking more often does NOT infringe the rights of others.

There is no right to have your viewpoint equally represented. None. You do have the same right to vote, assuming that you're a citizen and are registered. You have the same right to use your resources as you'd like, within the content-neutral rules, as anybody else does.

But if you're a fringe candidate whom nobody wants to listen to, and whose ideas are so unpopular that nobody else wants to back them, you have no right to demand that everybody else be so, either.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Stonehand]

That would be the Incumbency Protection Act.

After all, incumbents get more publicity from exercising the powers of their office, and more free publicity from media members. Try getting the equivalent of a State of the Union address, for instance, without being POTUS.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not all exercises of a right are protected exercises: if that exercise infringes upon the rights of others then it is NOT protected - and SHOULD NOT BE."

Well, logically you're right. But consider that the right to freedom of expression, particularly political speech is the 1st amendment. Held above all the rest.

So where do you think a strict contructionist would place the right to political free speech? I mean, particularly since the 1st is so absolute. Congress shall make no laws. Not "Congress shall make no unreasonable laws" or "It is suggested that congress".

The constituion uses pretty plain language. No matter how you try to make it seem complicated.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[gfxguy]

If people have a right to free speech, and money is speech, doesn't that mean that the arguments of those in favor of forcing broadcasters to give airtime to people without compensation are valid?

Are you kidding me? Since when did the ability to speak freely include forcing someone else to provide you the venue from which to do it?

If we're talking about idealism, then we should lay the blame of money buying elections squarely where it belongs: on the public electing people to office because of popularity instead of voting for the candidate that most closely shares the same views as they do. I think all this money spent on campaigns is laughable! What kind of idiot votes for a candidate because they liked the TV ad?(*) Come on!

* - Yes, I know it happens all too frequently. People are sheep and care more about who's left on survivor or who is getting booted off American Idol then they care about who is running the country. When more people can name the Simpsons than who is on the supreme court, when more people know who won American Idol than know who their senators and representatives are, that's when we are in trouble. We are in trouble. And it's the fault of "the people".

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

Remind me which part of the constitution guarantees the rights of political candidates on the campaign trail equal representation?

I'm not talking about the political candidates having equal time on the air with their adds

i'm talking about the citizens they serve having an equal voice in congress/the presidency

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Stonehand]

"Free speech" does not include a right to the medium. You cannot force a newspaper to publish your Letter to the Editor, unless it is explicitly under some obligation to do so.

If the ads bother you, you're free to attempt to convince others that the ads are wrong. Since political ads are frequently chock-full of distortions through selective presentation of facts (outright slander being somewhat rare), this shouldn't be too difficult.

At that point, you get to realize that it's not the lack of money that matters, but the lack of attention and rationality from the voters.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

I'm not talking about the candidates rights - i'm talking about the rights of the citizens they're supposed to serve.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[gfxguy]

I agree to an extent, but there's a point you need to reach when you say "Ok, I know what he meant."

For example, confiscating land for "public use" is quite clear and is vastly different than "private use that might ultimately provide some public good." It didn't take much for 95% of the population to agree on that after the travesty that was the Kelo ruling.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[dancpsu]

So we get campaign commercials that sound like Public Service Announcements?

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

I disagree - simply having your name out there in the news isn't enough to protect an incumbency if you had no more money to spend than you oponant.

Especially if we tighten up slander laws relating to campaign advertising

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Stonehand]

Same principle. You have no right to demand that others subsizide your speech, nor to insist that others refrain from espousing their own.

'Equal representation' is one man, one vote -- oh, and there are certain rules about being able to contact your legislators. That's it.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Stonehand]

That's a nice leap of faith. Contributions, after all, do not necessarily involve a quid pro quo -- and that's what bribery is about.

What it IS about is helping to fund a campaign, because you agree with that campaign sufficiently (or dislike all others that much). You're not going to want to contribute to a campaign which DISAGREES with what's most important to you, are you -- unless you've got either priorities than policies, like insisting on a candidate with two X chromosomes or whatever. Unless you actually make a request, however, that's linked to the money -- there's no bribery.

I contribute to public radio stations. That doesn't mean that I'm writing them and trying to sway their programming -- even though they do run programs that I find not worth listening to (a slight excess of quiz shows, rambling from Garrison Keillor, shows broadcast thrice a week and artist interviews, say). All they get from me is a little bit o' funding, no strings attached, primarily because of the breadth and depth of their news programming with relatively little advertising -- and the endorsements that they do run, at least usually do not treat the listeners as utter morons. If there were candidates whom I actually agreed with and respected, and whom had a reasonable chance, I might back them. *shrug*

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

Same principle. You have no right to demand that others subsizide your speech, nor to insist that others refrain from espousing their own.

Nobody is being asked to refrain from espousing there own position here - i'm just advocating that they're just not allowed to buy favor from candidates anymore. It's the only solution I see.

'Equal representation' is one man, one vote -- oh, and there are certain rules about being able to contact your legislators. That's it.

The world according to Stonehand

However in Real Life(tm) equal representation is interfered with by moneyed individuals and corporations currying favor with candidates through contributions - You need look no farther than Orin Hatch and Jack Ambramoff for two PRIME examples that prove me 100% correct.

Money buys congresscritters/the president and their favor: silencing and disenfranchizing those without money.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Brandybuck]

You do not have a first ammendment right to give money to your candidate for the very reason that Money IS speech. The person with the most money has more of a voice, violating the right to equal representation of the other people in the district.

Pleased with himself, LordKazan went on to prove that black was white and promptly got himself run over at the next zebra crossing.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[gfxguy]

They do... they elect the candidate. If they stupidly do that based on advertisements, it's their own fault.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

You do not know the difference between rights and license

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[RexRhino]

Stop worshiping the government. Allowing the government to control political donations and censor political advertisments is only going to give the corrupt people in power MORE POWER, not restrict them in any way. The small parties in America, who don't get a cent from corporations or special interest groups, are finding themselves in all sorts of legal and financial problems, when the big parties like the Democrats and Republicans it is buisness as usual. "Campaign Finance Reform" should be called "Third Party Elimination".

How about this: I earned my money, I paid my taxes on the money, and I should be allowed to give it to whoever I want, for any reason I want, no matter what facists and totalitarians such as yourself think!

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

Perhaps if you bothered to READ MY POST you would realize it would be a BOON FOR THE THIRD PARTIES

And you need to learn what the definitions of totalitarianism and fascism are my very ingorant foe.

You do not have the right to buy the favor of your representatives and thereby disenfranchize your fellow man - which is EXACTLY what direct campaign donations is doing and anyone who denies such is full of it

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

This has nothing to do with advertising - this is about people buying favor with candidates which is EXACTLY what campaign contributions are - no matter WHERE they come from.

The person with money is buying the favor of the candidate and thereby effectively disenfranchizing those without money.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[jmorris42]

> The latest and most significant restrictions were passed by a Republican-controlled House
> and Democratic-controlled Senate, signed by a Democratic President, and approved by a
> split Supreme Court.

No, the first real 'campaign finance laws' were passed by Democrats in the aftermath of Watergate. This latest batch was rammed by Sen McCain(RINO-AZ), Sen Feingold(D-WI), and the MSM(D). Signed by a sometimes conservative President Bush(R) who stated that it was his belief that it was unconstituitional but knew the months of acrimony a veto would bring would distract from a fairly important War he was kinda preoccupied with. (Not that I absolve Shrubbie, he violated his Oath of Office by signing it just as much as McCain or Feingold for sponsoring it.) Then the usual suspects on the Supreme Court ignored the 1st Amendment and upheld it. And amazingly the Democratic machine was all prepped and ready to roll around McCain Feingold with an extensive network of 527 organizations. Guess we now know why they were really for it. And of course a lot of Republican incumbents saw it as a positive for themselves, which was why they were so easy to steamroll into supporting it.

Reducing the amount of money in politics only serves to increase the power of incumbency. Being an incumbent gets you plenty of free press coverage.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[hunterx11]

Are you kidding me? Since when did the ability to speak freely include forcing someone else to provide you the venue from which to do it?

If people have a right to free speech, and money is speech, doesn't that mean that the arguments of those in favor of forcing broadcasters to give airtime to people without compensation are valid?

The argument is valid but unsound but not all of the premises are true. However, if they were true, as jmorris42 claimed, then it would be sound. I'm pointing out the absurdity equating speech with money.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[jmorris42]

> For example, confiscating land for "public use" is quite clear and is vastly different
> than "private use that might ultimately provide some public good." It didn't take much for
> 95% of the population to agree on that after the travesty that was the Kelo ruling.

Actually Kelo was a good example of strict constructionism at work. The 'good guys', as opposed to the nimrods who yank new laws fully formed from their asses, on the court ruled against an outcome they clearly would have preferred and stuck to the law as written. The state constituition in question clearly permitted the action and the US Consitituition as a general rule only limits what the US Government can do. So they upheld the taking and noted that if the state laws were different they would have ruled differently, whereupon the outraged folks in the various states looked at their local laws and are in the process of making changes where needed.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You've cited the very section that proves that you're wrong, but you just can't seem to grasp that fact.

Article I, section 4: "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."

Nevermind the fact that any reputable expert in Constitutional law will repeatedly tell all and sundry that each right and power conferred in the Constitution is subject to some form of balancing test -- there are no absolute rights, including free speech.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[RexRhino]

And you need to learn what the definitions of totalitarianism and fascism are my very ingorant foe.

Totalitarianism is a government that controls or regulates nearly everything in society. Most people think totalitarian means "bad", and that "I am not totalitarian, because I am not bad". But the term Totalitarian doesn't include any moral judgements. If you believe in a society where nearly everything is controlled or regulated by the government, you are totalitarian... you may percieve that the government regulation is going to make things more "safe" or more "fair", or bring about "social justice"... but those who want a highly regulated society are totalitarians, plain and simple. You can explain why your form of totalitarianism is "good", but please don't pretend not to be totalitarian.

You might not be "Facist" in the strict sense of the word "Facist", because true Facism in the strict sense of the word died after WWII. But in general speech, Facism is used to describe authoritarians, totalitarians, or other people with views of extreme state control. So, technically you are not a Facist according to the strict dictionary definition, but you agree with facists that we should trust the government implicitly to regulate political speech and support.

You do not have the right to buy the favor of your representatives and thereby disenfranchize your fellow man

I have every right to support any candidate I want, in any way I want, so long as the resources I am using are mine. If I want to endorse a politician in my blog, or give a politician my own personal money, that is absolutly my right, without question. The government has no right to tell me what causes I am and not allowed to donate my time, voice, or money to, and which ones I am not.

The thing that will disenfranchize my fellow man is when the government has total control over what resources candidates recieve, as you advocate. For your vision to work, the government would have to be absolutly impartial and uncorrupt in how it distributes candidate resources. Do you trust G. W. Bush, and a Republican Congress, and a Republican Senate, to have the sole responsibility for deciding who gets what campaign resources? Are you telling me that a party, if it was in power, could be trusted to fairly distribute financial support to it's rivals? Come on man. Government control of campaign resources is a one way ticket to dictatorship.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[thefirelane]

No.. we get campaign commercials by individuals, and people give tons of money to those individuals. This would probably be celebrities.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Anonymous Coward]

Instant runoff voting does not solve the spoiler effect. This should be obvious from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRV

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[jmorris42]

> If people have a right to free speech, and money is speech, doesn't that mean that the
> arguments of those in favor of forcing broadcasters to give airtime to people without
> compensation are valid?

Someone is confusing Presses and Attorneys. You have the right to an attorney, if you can not afford one, one will be provided for you. On the other hand, while you also have the Right to a Free Press, A Press will not be provided to you for Free. However if you can afford 10.95/mo for Netzero and $100 for an old beatup Dell you CAN bitch on Slashdot or Daily Kos all you want.

And class, what can be learn from this? Presses are valuable, we don't just give them to any crackpot who demands one. Attorneys on the other hand are worthless pieces of crap we give away for free to any old spammer or pedophile.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Ambidisastrous]

Actually, there is another way -- remove most of the motivation for bribery.

Filthy, hedonistic greed is certainly one reason donations are so compelling for politicians, but another reason is the huge cost of advertising.

I don't quite have the initiative to look up any hard numbers, but as I understand it, a 30-second TV spot with national distribution can cost millions by itself. Since newspapers and radio have been losing influence for decades, and the Internet is still catching on with the core voting demographic (source: thin air), TV ads are currently the main resource Federal-level candidates have for reaching undecided voters. For this reason, among others, the men-behind-the-curtain in both parties tend to select new potential candidates with plenty of personal wealth already. In the traditional way of campaigning, a candidate with no money is mute until the next big fundraiser.

The Internet makes speech just about free, in both senses of the word, and that makes it possible to at least remove half the motivation for bribery. If you'll allow me to put on my Hat of Naivete +3, I'd say a free, unlimited forum for political speech also makes it possible for an honest candidate or grassroots movement to get started on a shoestring budget, too. I'm not particularly worried about shadowy political entities offering bribes to bloggers for a quick plug -- blogs just don't work the same way as TV -- but the key is keeping speech as open and unhindered as possible.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[hazem]

Right, but the incumbant will always be able to use government vehicles to go on "fact-finding" missions throughout the state/world. Or even just to have "face-to-face" time with local leaders. And oh, by the way, the media will probably be there for his Public Service Announcement, and local supporters can pay $100 a plate for a dinner with the incumbant while he's in town.

There's nothing wrong with overpaying for dinner. This is a democracy.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

let's take one of your examples

what would they do with the money raised by the $100-a-plate dinner? Under the system i proposed it's illegal for them to use it to campaign - so what would they do with it?

Id make penalties for violations MINIMUM: Felony, bared from elected/appointed government positions for life, jail term.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Planesdragon]

I await the day when we get enough strict constructionists on the Supreme Court to reverse their previous bad decisions, sweeping away McCain Fiengold and most other 'Campaign Finance Laws' that aren't limited to mandatory disclosure requirements.

Check out the Constitution before you call for strict constructionists.

Article 1, Section 4: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Without SCOTUS jumping from what's written to "money is speech", there isn't a prayer at all to keep Congress from simply banning campaign contributions outright. But, even if we do take money-as-speech to be vital to the First Amendment, that still doesn't mean that it cannot be legislatively limited to ensure a more-equal voice to all citizens --> similar to how it's perfectly acceptable for us to expect religions to obey our criminal laws, or for you to not exercise your right to freely be terribly loud at 4 a.m.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[freedom_india]

Can't work and can;t be implemented.

Oh and not because its not technically feasible, its because congress would have to close shop and all the approporation committees would be wound up if that happens.

You are NOT living in Utopia to demand all these.

Wake up !

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[hazem]

Great. So, suppose Senator Hoohoo is a "friend" of mine. He's coming to town.

I throw a dinner and invite him as a "guest speaker". Dinners are costly, so the cost of the dinner is $100/$1000/whatever.

I then use that money to publish a book/newsletter, etc, saying what a great guy Senator Hoohoo is and why everyone should vote for him.

It's going to take quite a law or quite a court to say that I no longer have the right to assemble with people I want to (the senator and my guests) and that I don't have the right to write a book about how great I think he is.

It's a tricky thing. It's a bad road to go down when you have the government telling people what they can say, who they can say it to, and how much they can spend to say it. Where do you draw the line?

What's worse is that the system you've proposed will only serve to make it harder for those who are not already politically connected to get in. Those who are "in" will have the protection of the others that are in. Those who are out will have to spend even more time & effort making sure they don't violate the law. What happens when an incumbant governor has his attorney general bring an investigation against his challengers? Now they have to spend money on a legal defense while trying to run a campain - all the while the incumbant gets all kinds of free press.

Probably the best thing to do is to get corporate money out of the situation. Corporations are not humans and should not be treated as if they were.

Instant-run-off voting would be another nice change. It helps take the bitter taste of out voting for the lesser of two evils.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[ShakaUVM]

Actually, I'm curious why corporations are allowed to donate at all. The rights of free speech are not to be abridged to individuals -- let people blog and talk about politics as much as they want. It's Wheaties donating $1M across 2000 politicians that worries me more.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Anonymous Coward]

Each presidential retreat has excellent communications just as if he was at the White House.

Reporter: Is it true that you spent most of your new presidency so far at your range in Texas?
Bush: Uhmm, you know, uhmm, today, uhmm, with faxes and telephones, uhmmm, wonderful things can happen

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Brandybuck]

Go read your post again. You said that I don't have the right of free speech because money is speech.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[FleaPlus]

no private comercials could be run naming or picturing a specific candidate - the most specific they could be is "support the candidate that supports concept-x"

I'm curious: Do you think there should be restrictions on the creation of movies like Fahrenheit 9-11, which are largely dedicated to digging up dirt on particular candidates? What if somebody owns a television station and likes one candidate more than another -- should they be permitted to broadcast material which shows one candidate in a better light than another?

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Anonymous Coward]

Here it is, the official LordKazan Logic(TM) Test!

• You have a right to free speech
• Giving money is speech
• You don't have a right to give money
• Therefore:
  1. You don't have a right to free speech
  2. You do have a right to free speech
  3. None of the above
  4. Aaaagh, LordKazan Logic(TM) makes my melon ache!

If you answered both 1 and 2, congratulations, you are capable of grasping LordKazan Logic(TM). If you answered 4, keep reading Slashdot and the pain from all the confusion will soon go away.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Hydroksyde]

People nowadays seem to have a very limited concept of Democracy, literally "The common people rule". There is more to democracy than elections. In a democracy with an elected government, The common people as a whole don't rule, an elected few do. Therefore it is important to make sure that the elected represent the common people. In order for that to happen, it is important for all of the common people's viewpoints be equally represented.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Bill Dog]

Corporations, unions, any organization. None of them get to vote. So why should they get to donate? They should stay the fuck out of the process.

Instead of infringing on citizens' rights, assholes McCain and Feingold should've simply banned all non-individual contributions.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[mpe]

People nowadays seem to have a very limited concept of Democracy, literally "The common people rule". There is more to democracy than elections.

There are plenty of examples of elections existing without democracy. It's probably actually possible to have a system of government which is democratic without any elections at all. e.g. Ancient Athens randomly selected "juries" carried out legislative and executive functions. Somehow the idea of democracy equating to elections has become popular.

In a democracy with an elected government, The common people as a whole don't rule, an elected few do. Therefore it is important to make sure that the elected represent the common people. In order for that to happen, it is important for all of the common people's viewpoints be equally represented.

Part of this is addressed by the last part of The First Ammendment to the US Constitution. "... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." One big practical problem is how to ensure that the voice of the common person can be heard over that of corporate and political lobby groups.
Which tends to mean that not only do viewpoints of ordinary people go unrepresented there are also viewpoints which ordinary people have little or no interest in being represented.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[jthayden]

You might as well wait for Godot.

I'm sure he will be here any minute.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[spiritraveller]

The state constituition in question clearly permitted the action and the US Consitituition as a general rule only limits what the US Government can do. So they upheld the taking and noted that if the state laws were different they would have ruled differently ...

The US Constitution is a "baseline" as far as rights go. State constitutions can provide more protection for individual liberties, but they cannot reduce the protections that the Federal constitution provides.

For over a hundred years, the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to apply almost all of the first ten amendments to the states. The Supreme Court would not have even decided the case if it were based entirely on state law. Kelo is a case where the Court interprets the Fifth Amendment as it applies to and limits a city government (a unit of the state).

You ought to read the case before speculating on the Court's rationale.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

I then use that money to publish a book/newsletter, etc, saying what a great guy Senator Hoohoo is and why everyone should vote for him.

That's a campaign contribution, and even now I believe it already counts.

What happens when an incumbant governor has his attorney general bring an investigation against his challengers?

The independant election integrity commission brings them up on charges and convicts them and neither could hold office ever again their entire lives.

What's worse is that the system you've proposed will only serve to make it harder for those who are not already politically connected to get in.

They're mandated an equal ammount of money to spend on their campaign.

Probably the best thing to do is to get corporate money out of the situation. Corporations are not humans and should not be treated as if they were.

Already with our caps on how much corproates can give many evade it by giving the money in the names of individuals - ie 1000x the $1000 personal cap.

As long as money is directly going to candidates it's bribery.

Some method of stopping the bribery must be found.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

No that's not what I said.

What I said is this:

You do not have a first ammendment right to give money to your candidate for the very reason that Money IS speech. The person with the most money has more of a voice, violating the right to equal representation of the other people in the district.

Which can also be stated.

Since money = speech in the political world, through buying the favor of candidates, the person with more money can effectively silence the voices of other people in the district. This is a violation of the right to equal representation and therefore not a protected exercise of the first ammendment.

As I stated before: you do not understand the difference between rights (a protected exercise of a right) and license (an exercise of a right that infringes on the rights of others so is not protected by said right)

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[gfxguy]

No, the argument is not valid. Jmorris42 is pointing out that they use this money to buy airtime and other advertising. In no way can you then make the argument that because someone can afford a lot of advertising that someone else must be given advertising for free.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[gfxguy]

Which is when they ought to be voted out of office. It all boils down to people not paying enough attention. Yes, it is the case that someone can get into office and abuse the position, I can't and wouldn't argue otherwise, but that's why every few years there is a new election. If a politician accepts what obstensibly amounts to a bribe, then the people need to vote them out. If they don't, then they are being fairly represented.

It's not a perfect system, and changes can be slow, but they do happen. If the people have a good track record of kicking people out of office who accept a lot of money from special interests that the people at large don't agree with, then candidates will stop accepting those kinds of donations.

Let's face it, by and large the electorate is stupid and the politicians like it that way, and the more socialized we become, the more comfortable and lazy the electorate becomes. When people have to take care of themselves, they will pay more attention to whats going on in the real world around them as opposed to something as meaningless as who got booted from American Idol.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Raging_Bob]

Would you rather live in a world where.

1. Things are like they are now with regard to political ads.

or

2. Live in a world where no political ads were allowed at all except by the limited public funds available to the politcian? Of course in order for this to happen there would have to be a regulatory commision to ensure that other organizations were not lobying for one politican or another.
    Non profit groups like Focus on the Family or NARAL pro choice would clearly not be allowed to advertise as they promote a political agenda.

    Big oil companies might try to sneak in political messages such as claiming they've helped cleaned up parts of the state with help from the state government (this message would clearly be an endorsement of the party in power).

Of course big corporations own news outlets and when they're not allowed to directly advertise about something they could just buy a news outlet incorporate their messages into the programing.

    So news/TV/radio would have to be strictly monitored for political material to prevent this.

    Also David Letterman and Jay Leno would not be allowed to put candidates on their TV show unless maybe if they give each candidate equal time which is unlikely since there are usually over 300 or so people actively campaigning for president during any given election cycle and we would clearly not allow them to discriminate against smaller parties and independents this would only solidify the main party's strangle hold to power!

    Next of course late night TV jokes about the candidates would have to be shut down as this could clearly be an endorsement if more jokes were made about one candidate than another.

    All media would have to be stictly purged of all political content.

    Political rallies and protest are another creative way to circumvent these enlightened campaign finance laws. This is a clear way to support your candidate outside the prescribed campaign finance system. All political rallies would also have to be crushed.

-Raging Bob

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

Non profit groups like Focus on the Family or NARAL pro choice would clearly not be allowed to advertise as they promote a political agenda.

Wrong - both would still be allowed to advertise, just not name/picture candidates

Big oil companies might try to sneak in political messages such as claiming they've helped cleaned up parts of the state with help from the state government (this message would clearly be an endorsement of the party in power).

they ALREADY do this

Of course big corporations own news outlets and when they're not allowed to directly advertise about something they could just buy a news outlet incorporate their messages into the programing.

Which is why the FCC needs to start doing it's job in reguards to enforcing non-bias in the newsmedia

Also David Letterman and Jay Leno would not be allowed to put candidates on their TV show unless maybe if they give each candidate equal time which is unlikely since there are usually over 300 or so people actively campaigning for president during any given election cycle and we would clearly not allow them to discriminate against smaller parties and independents this would only solidify the main party's strangle hold to power!

not all 300 of those peolpe can get on the ballot

not all face time would count as promotion - it's a fine line

Next of course late night TV jokes about the candidates would have to be shut down as this could clearly be an endorsement if more jokes were made about one candidate than another.

Nope - way to pull stuff out yer arse

All media would have to be stictly purged of all political content.

Pulling more stuff out yer arse

Political rallies and protest are another creative way to circumvent these enlightened campaign finance laws. This is a clear way to support your candidate outside the prescribed campaign finance system. All political rallies would also have to be crushed.

Pulling stuff out of your arse

-Raging Bob

Raging IDIOT bob you mean

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Bastard of Subhumani]

I agree that it's dangerous that J. Random Richdude, although he only has one vote himself, can use his money to influence others. Yes, it's the individuals going into the booth, but if they're under the spell of his propaganda, they're effectively his robots and it might as well be him. Dictatorship by proxy.

On the other hand, you could argue that if he's willing to spend his money that way, then why stop him? Then again, where do you draw the line. Is buying the lawmakers any better than bribing the law enforcers?

It's a problem but it's hard to think of a solution that 1) doesn't rely on subjective rules and 2) wouldn't be worse than the problem.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[CrimsonAvenger]

No it doesn't because the incumbancy advantage is removed. I think you misunderstood my idea.

Say the race is for president and the pool of money is $100m. There are three candidates -
The Incumbent
Challenger A
Challenger B

All three get 1/3 of $100m to spend on their campaign - no private money [including their own] is allowed.

Umm, no. Incumbent announces his new bill granting a tax break to all American Citizens, incumbent gets front page article in every newspaper in the country. FREE PUBLICITY!

Challenger A announces that if he is elected, he'll give a tax break to all American citizens, papers that already favour him mention it on page 3, papers that don't like him put it on page 19, or in the Obituaries.

Or Incumbent mentions his opponent in speech in Congress. Calls him a mangy dog or somesuch - more free publicity (and you're immmune from libel/slander for anything said in Congress if you're a member)....

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[jratcliffe]

"Corporations in particular don't give a crap about whats best for the electorate. Their millions in donations are, first to convince a candidate to turn his back on the people, and second to win that candidate the election."

Um, you do know that corporations give $0 to candidates, right? Individual employees of corporations do (PACs), but corporate contributions to federal candidates are prohibited by law.

Frankly, the major purpose of donations isn't your first point, but your second. Find somebody who believes that tax rates on the rich should be cut, or EPA standards relaxed, or non-union workplaces banned, or gay marriage legalized, or whatever, and help to get him/her elected.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

(and you're immmune from libel/slander for anything said in Congress if you're a member)....

that needs to change

I see your point - I never said this was a perfect system, it's the only option I see to end the culture of corruption - I am but one mind, it takes more than one to find the best solution.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Gunzour]

So where does the $100m come from? Tax dollars? What if I don't want my tax dollars going to support Candidate B's campaign because I don't like Candidate B? Also, how does someone become eligible to receive a share of this money? What is to prevent 100 or 1000 people from applying for their share?

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Gunzour]

Equal representation is provided in the form of voting. Speech != representation.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[phlinn]

2 things:
1. There is no right to equal representation anywhere in the constitution. Please see the senate and electoral college for clear counter examples.

2. Approval voting is a much better solution than IRV. It sucessfully guarantees minimizing voter disapproval and is just as easy to explain. It also fails Arrow's theorem presumably, although I'm not certain which criteria in particular doesn't hold.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

So where does the $100m come from? Tax dollars?

$100m was just a nice round number - the money for a campaign would come from a cominbation of a "starting fund" in tax dollars (other countries do this and have less corruption problems) and then can be grown by private donations from individuals and business to the race and the pot is evenly divided.

What if I don't want my tax dollars going to support Candidate B's campaign because I don't like Candidate B?

tough shit - money from people who don't like your candidate is going to pay for your candidate too.

Also, how does someone become eligible to receive a share of this money?

they get on the ballot.

What is to prevent 100 or 1000 people from applying for their share?

they have to go through the process of getting onto the ballot - which is generally getting a certain ammount of signatures - ie showing they have enough support to be viable.

any unspent money returns to the pot and is saved for the next election cycle.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

When that equal representation is interfered with by people buying favor with the elected official the effect of their vote is negated.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That's a nice leap of faith. Contributions, after all, do not necessarily involve a quid pro quo -- and that's what bribery is about.

And American Capitalism is about profit- nobody would give contributions if there wasn't some form of quid pro quo going on, because it wouldn't be PROFITABLE to do so.

What it IS about is helping to fund a campaign, because you agree with that campaign sufficiently (or dislike all others that much). You're not going to want to contribute to a campaign which DISAGREES with what's most important to you, are you -- unless you've got either priorities than policies, like insisting on a candidate with two X chromosomes or whatever. Unless you actually make a request, however, that's linked to the money -- there's no bribery.

And with the lobby system in place- Corporate America makes, and gets, plenty of requests passed. Just look at Corporate Income Tax Code- seems that every billionaire and his brother has a special exemption someplace. Money buys access- access that the people can't afford.

I contribute to public radio stations. That doesn't mean that I'm writing them and trying to sway their programming -- even though they do run programs that I find not worth listening to (a slight excess of quiz shows, rambling from Garrison Keillor, shows broadcast thrice a week and artist interviews, say). All they get from me is a little bit o' funding, no strings attached, primarily because of the breadth and depth of their news programming with relatively little advertising -- and the endorsements that they do run, at least usually do not treat the listeners as utter morons. If there were candidates whom I actually agreed with and respected, and whom had a reasonable chance, I might back them. *shrug*

Right now, the way the system is set up, you wouldn't be able to afford to.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

1. Just because it is not written in the constitution does not mean it exists. You're gauranteed equal representation with everyone else in your district. (there went your counter example)

When someone buys the favor of the politician they effectively negate your vote and your voice.

2. IRV was the only one I knew of LIKE that - if there is a better system so be it

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Gunzour]

What if I don't want my tax dollars going to support Candidate B's campaign because I don't like Candidate B?

tough shit - money from people who don't like your candidate is going to pay for your candidate too.

So you are forcing me to pay for speech that I don't agree with. That seems to fundamentally violate the spirit of free speech.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[sbrown123]

but you can't coordinate with the campaign while doing so.

Ummm, yeah. The key word "coordinate" is not a good idea since, like I said, there are limits to how much an INDIVIDUAL can GIVE to a presidental canidate or political party. As I said before, you can do alot as an INDIVIDUAL. Hear it again: INDIVIDUAL. Not an INDIVIDUAL RECEIVING ORDERS FROM A PRESIDENTAL CANIDATES CAMPAIGN OR POLITICAL PARTY TO SPEND AND/OR RECEIVE MONEY.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

Seems and does are two different things. Unlimited campaign contributions to individual candidates SEEMS to be protected by the first ammendment - but since such can be used to buy favor with politicians and thereby silence the voices of others in their representatives decisions it is not.

There are many things you tax dollars are spent on that you dislike - paying to put all candidates on a level playing field is protectionary of your first ammendment rights.

You can either have something like what I proposed, or the current system under which most of the people in washington are bought-and-paid for by the various moneyed groups.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[hazem]

Some method of stopping the bribery must be found.

And as soon as you find it, and manage to get it through a legislative process, it will already be full of holes, and politicians will already have figured out how to get around it.

It's like DRM. Pretty much as soon as you come up with a method, someone clever enough will figure out how to get around it.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[sbrown123]

If you want to stop this, then say there is a time period, say 60 days before each election

How long does it take a check to clear the bank? Seriously, what is a time limit suppose to do?

It's also a way to entertain people out of the eyes of everyone in Washington or discuss sensitive issues without "leaks" 15 minutes later.

Why, oh why should our president fear leaks? Be honest with yourself. What is it that he is doing that requires a level of secrecy that can only be attained from the confines of his luxureus Texas ranch? How many secrets do you walk around with that you constantly fear someone might find out about? I personally can't think of something I have done that the general public would have a problem with. Why should our president, an elected official, be any different? I think people who a secretive or sneaky are untrustworthy.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[CrimsonAvenger]

(and you're immmune from libel/slander for anything said in Congress if you're a member)....

that needs to change

Article 1, Section 6, US Constitution. That'll require an amendment. Good luck on getting Congress to remove one of its own prerogatives.

Besides, removing it would be a bad idea. If it were gone, every congresscritter would suffer under an endless barrage of lawsuits over everything they say, till it reaches the point that they wouldn't dare say anything for fear of offending someone...

Which might not be a bad thing, really. But it would render the legislative branch impotent. Note that the other branches do not enjoy this prerogative, so would be unaffected by its removal.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Gunzour]

There are many things you tax dollars are spent on that you dislike

This is true, and it is a sad situation that such a high percentage of people's paychecks is confiscated to support programs that they do not agree with. Let me keep the money I earned and decide for myself what to spend it on, thankyouverymuch.

paying to put all candidates on a level playing field is protectionary of your first ammendment rights.

It violates the rights of those candidates by essentially prohibiting them from all speech outside of some government-regulated fund. Those candidates are entitled to free speech as much as I am.

The biggest problem with your proposal is that it just won't work. Prohibit spending money on candidates and money will be spent on issue ads instead. And everyone will know which side of the issue each candidate is on anyway, so what difference does it make?

By your last sentence I suppose you are telling me there your solution is the only possible one?

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Damek]

Money is not speech.

Money is not time.

Money is money. Money can be used to amplify speech. Money can be used to save time. Money can be used to control, extort, pay off, bribe, reward, incentivize, and many other things that involve power relationships.

Governance & politics, however, should be shielded from this as much as possible. Governance & politics are supposed to be about ideas, and which ones are best for managing society. (And if you don't think society should be managed, that's fine, that's another idea, and money shouldn't have an impact in whether or not it gets implemented.)

Therefore, SCOTUS needs to acknowledge that money is not speech, and money should not be involved in politics.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[exi1ed0ne]

Good point, but I'd disagree that they intended it to mean how to run a campaign. It reads to me more towards how they conduct the actual election. In any case, the current election legislation takes a carte blanch approach and applies more then just those. For purposes of the discussion I'd be fine excluding these two offices.

I'd also agree with ballancing test for rights, but that isn't the Fed's job. The original intent was to have these issues handled at the state or more local level. Requiring the same test in Alabama as you have in California doesn't make sense, and is a feature of an authoritarian government. This is something the founders were very much against, having just barely won a rebellion against one.

As for conveying rights, the Constitution doesn't do this. It was written by the people for government, not the other way around. I'd recommend both the Federalist Papers, as well as the Anti-Federalist papers, for further reading as to what the Constitution was intended to be and decide for yourself.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

I'm saying its the only one I can see that would come close to working.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

If it were gone, every congresscritter would suffer under an endless barrage of lawsuits over everything they say

No they wouldn't - slander/libel are very specific things and most lawyers won't consider litigating it, and those that do are very choosy to make sure they actually have a case.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[amliebsch]

Why not? Why shouldn't I, as an INDIVIDUAL, be able to voluntarily take orders from whoever I want? If I have a pot of money, what business is it of the government whether I listen to how my financial planner tells me to spend it, how moveon.org tells me to spend it, or how the DNC tells me to spend it?

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[james_shoemaker]

Also, how does someone become eligible to receive a share of this money?

they get on the ballot.


How many ballots? All 50? or just enough to have a chance to win? You do know that there were at least 42 people officially running for president in 2004? Cool that you want to split the funding that well, but I can't see the 2 major parties going for that one. But excluding them is just asking for a supreme court case.

James

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Anonymous Coward]

You do not have a first ammendment right to speak for your candidate for the very reason that speaking IS speech. The person with the best speaking ability has more of a voice, violating the right to equal representation of the other people in the district.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[jmorris42]

> The US Constitution is a "baseline" as far as rights go.

That certainly wasn't how it was seen at the time it was ratified. For example the 1st Amendment forbids the establishment of a State Religion, something many of the individual States had.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[CrimsonAvenger]

No they wouldn't - slander/libel are very specific things and most lawyers won't consider litigating it, and those that do are very choosy to make sure they actually have a case.

Let's see. I'm a lawyer. My client is the Green Party. The latest Campaign Finance Reform proposed in the House will ensure the Greens never get near a ballot again. I can:

a) say "well, nothing we can do about this one"

b) fudge together some charges against EVERY politician that has spoken in favour of this bill.

Worse that can happen is my clients lose a lot of money (but it's not MY money). Best case is that some of those hundreds of congresscritters are found guilty of something (enough people dislike congresscritters on principle that it's a fair bet that some Jury somewhere will find "guilty"). Neutral case is that the finance reform bill is forgotten while hundreds of congresscritters defend themselves from a blizzard of lawsuits.

One must remember that a "normal" slander/libel suit is about a bit of money and/or a retraction/apology. Slander/libel against congresscritters is another weapon in the ongoing struggle to control $2.8 trillion dollars per year. Bigger stakes, more likely to be able to find someone willing to do the deed....

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[sbrown123]

If I have a pot of money, what business is it of the government whether I listen to how my financial planner tells me to spend it

Because elections are not suppose to be about money. Elections are suppose to be about voting for a canidate who we believe has the best message and will serve in our best interests. With enough money it would be possible for one canidate to effectively mute another. And some people may think that's money well spent. Ofcourse, these are the same types of people who think they should be able to buy away other peoples' freedoms. How very un-American.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[john82]

Try getting the equivalent of a State of the Union address, for instance, without being POTUS

You can, and you can't.

If you represent one of the two main parties in the US, and are the opposition party to the current POTUS, the networks typically provide time to air your "opposing viewpoint" (excessive hyperbole in your response notwithstanding).

If you do not meet the criteria of Blue or Red party, then you are SOL. Buy air time.

As an aside, incumbents do have other privileges and they are not limited to the resident of the White House. Check into the "franking" privileges of members of both halves of Congress. Free postage as long as you are "informing" your "constituents" of your good works in Congress. This of course allows some leeway in the definition of "informing" (rhymes with campaigning) and "constituents" (even the ones in NH and IA).

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[amliebsch]

With enough money it would be possible for one canidate to effectively mute another.

More speech by one party doesn't cause less speech by the other. After all, you could say the same thing about hard work: if candidate A gets 1000 volunteers to go knock on doors and candidate B only gets 1, well then candidate B is "effectively muted" by not having as many volunteers. Shall we then make it a crime to volunteer for campaigns? In any case, this position is inconsistent with your argument that individuals should be free to spend their own money as much as they want - that certainly does not result in equal amounts of election speech. By adopting equality of outcome as a criteria for fair elections, you end up having to impose all sorts of Harrison Bergeron-esque handicaps.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[spiritraveller]

That certainly wasn't how it was seen at the time it was ratified. You are correct. As I already pointed out, the 14th Amendment caused a major shift in the way individual rights are enforced in the US. It applies the Bill of Rights to the states and specifically empowers Congress to pass laws that enforce those rights.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[sbrown123]

More speech by one party doesn't cause less speech by the other.

Not muted by quantity, but muted by availability. To make a speech available, you need a way to have it reach your listeners. All mass broadcast systems, outside arguably the internet, are owned by companies who can be paid to NOT play opposing views or speeches. Censorship? No, the corps work with canidate A to put the price of broadcasting outside the reach of canidate B's budget. Although we have a right to free speech, we do not have a right to be heard.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Raging_Bob]

The scenario I illustrated is the logical extension of the direction that you and other ignorant but well-intentioned liberals want this country to go in. What you're saying is that no organization would be allowed to use the name or picture of a politician in an advertisement AND you're saying that the FCC should strictly monitor the newsmedia for bias.
    Yet in spite of the fact that I so clearly illustrated it already you don't realize that big corporation can buy media outlets and runs non-news TV shows or talk shows with a political bias. David letterman is a more powerful political force than probably any other single news show.
    You should be scared to live in a world where the government strictly enforces political dialoge. You should be scared to live in a world where you are not allowed to put up a yard sign to support your candidate (that would be using his name and outside the funding process).
    Pretty much what you're endorsing is the worst idea ever and you don't realize how much it kills freedom in this country even after someone clearly spells it out for you.
    Thanks for helping kill America, good job with that, and yea why don't you go attend that rally against Walmart after you get done shopping there.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[slothman32]

"shop and protest at Walmart"

There is a store around here that, according to some people, gets eggs in a cruel way.
Those people even have bumber stickers.
I saw one at the store it is against.
They also specifally said they will still shop there but just not get eggs.

Back on topic, the current method is not working.
Or at least I don't think so.
The method you are talking about preobably won't work either but it's idealism is better than the current realism.
A better way would seem to be to prevent rich people/groups from buying time just because they have money.
How that should be done I don't know but both ways aren't good at that.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[Brandybuck]

You say "Money IS speech" and "money = speech". I can only assume that you mean that money is a form of speech. That's the only way I can parse it. Let me rephrase your argument by equating money to blogs (since both are forms of speech):

"You do not have a first ammendment right to blog for your candidate for the very reason that it is Blogging IS speech. The person with the most popular blog has more of a voice, violating the right to equal representation of the other people in the district."

As I stated before: you do not understand the difference between rights (a protected exercise of a right) and license (an exercise of a right that infringes on the rights of others so is not protected by said right)

I am very well aware of the difference. But my money, wealth, property, jelly beans, or whatever, do not infringe on anyone else's rights. I am stopping no one from speaking. The lubrication of my wallet has no more impact upon your ability to speak than does the popularity of my blog.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

You would have to get onto the ballot in atleast half of the states.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

I never said my idea was the perfect solution and I did say that no one mind can see the optimal solution

My client is the Green Party

I knew there was a reason I liked you!

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

The dripping stereotyping and bigotry in your post are appaling. You have no valid input - and your political views are Anarchocapitalism: you have no right to be accusing others of "helping Destroy America"

Anarchocapitalism would destroy america instantly.

Please do not speak on subjects of which you have no understanding.

(Libertarianism is the new "clueless hippy")

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[LordKazan]

The analogy to blogs is a false one. Blogs are not money-in-the-pocket of congressscritters. Money is buying favor.

But my money, wealth, property, jelly beans, or whatever, do not infringe on anyone else's rights.

Your use of them can.

I am stopping no one from speaking. The lubrication of my wallet has no more impact upon your ability to speak than does the popularity of my blog.

You are stopping people from having representative government by buying favor of the politicians to vote in your interest no matter what.

You're evading this point and refusing to address it and instead picking straw men out of my argument - which makes me inclined to think you have no refutation for this statement: or, worse for your position, recognize the validity.

Re:Thanks for the small favors

[twiddlingbits]

Obviously you have never had access to Classified defense/intelligence material or plans. You are talking from ignorance. I am talking from experience. As soon as you tell the public you have told your enemies.

Let me be the first to say...

[TopShelf]

My /. journal is hereby wide open for political discourse, with articles sold to the highest bidder! You want a heartfelt piece on the passion in "Compassionate Conservatism", or a call to arms to support the interests of your favorite disenfranchised minority through progressive legislation? Just open the checkbook and we'll work something out. No job too big, no job too small! Order today!

Not completely off the hook..

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a bold step forward for freedom and democracy.

No longer will we live in fear of a web devoid of political opinion!
 
.. unfortunately bloggers are still required to comply with the biscuit protection act of 2005

Re:USA gets more corrupt every day

[Philip K Dickhead]

Whatever. Let me take this opportunity to promote my JEs!

Malkin...

[Yaa 101]

Michelle Makin will be gratefull to this ruling...

Re:Malkin...

[Yaa 101]

It's Malkin... (Note to self, take time to inspect your post).

Re:Malkin...

[deanoaz]

"Michelle Makin will be gratefull to this ruling..."

Since you meant 'Michelle Malkin will be gratefull for this ruling...', I have to agree. The ruling makes good sense and so does she.

Read her book, "Invasion" if you want to get an idea of the true state of our border controls and what that is really costing us.

Misleading tone

[kherr]

The tone of this post is misleading, making it sound like bloggers (online sites, actually) get special privilege. Nothing is farther from the truth. The FEC decision is that the internet community is to be held to the same standards as traditional media. This is a great thing, I just hope it holds. The FEC commissioners now get that the internet is just another media outlet, like print or television. In fact it is more egalitarian; the corporate owners of Gawker Media (for example) can't dictate the political bent of internet content the way News Corp. (FOX) or GE (NBC) can with their large-scale dominance of the limited bandwidth of television. There are hundreds of thousands of web servers on the internet, but only a few hundred broadcasters on both over-the-air and cable television.

Wait a minute!

[houstonbofh]

A politician / government employee used an ounce of common sense? This IS news!

Rulings like these show how loony the left is

[Anonymous Coward]

Crazy internet lefties cry wolf at new campaign legislation.

President Bush's FEC does the sensible thing.

Who would have guessed?

(Not Slashdot)

Re:Rulings like these show how loony the left is

[MillionthMonkey]

Crazy internet lefties cry wolf at new campaign legislation. President Bush's FEC does the sensible thing. Who would have guessed? (Not Slashdot)

And not a trace of gratitude in your post to those "crazy Internet lefties" either.

This is good news...

[smilindog2000]

Sounds to me like the FCC made a resoundingly correct decision. I hope our response here will be positive. We need to encourage smart decisions. This one will put me in a good mood for the rest of the day.

Re:too bad slashdong isn't exempt

[Anonymous Coward]

Shags like chicken.

Re:USA gets more corrupt every day

[ccmay]

I'm curious as to why you think this would increase corruption. Free speech is a beautiful and precious thing, and on balance prevents far more corruption than it causes. These campaign-finance "reforms" that stifle political speech are more worrisome to me than the Patriot Act.

-ccm

Nah

[0xdeadbeef]

I'll think she'll be dissapointed that campaigning for a non-Republican isn't grounds for being shipped off to an internment camp.

Re:Hi

[fleisher]

I realize Slashdot is the "Yesterday's News for Nerds" site and all, but isn't it about time a story about the death of Stanislaw Lem was posted? At least in this matter Slashdot doesn't have to be worried about being scooped by Digg, since diggers can't spell "Stanislaw"

Two gratuitous insults and one failure to execute. If you hadn't been so intent on being a smartass you could have posted the story yourself.

Horn-tooting

[Rydia]

I see a lot of triumphalism around the "blogosphere" about this... talk of the "netroots" and all those wonderful keywords, and how they changed the world.

This went through because to turn it down made absolutely no freaking sense. That's it.

I just don't get how they ALL can be drinking the kool-aid at once. You raise money for candidates. Woo! So does the phone, and dinners, and direct mail. But this is faster? Okay, it's more efficient and well-targetted. Does that give you political power? Maybe?

No, it doesn't. Your audience is far too diverse, and while you may come together to raise money for someone, that doesn't mean you can even get a coherent message together to send that person, just that he's some kind of internet darling. Maybe a consultant job for the blogger, but what did the blogger do, really? Rant a bit, host a website, and find the right words to get people pissed off enough, usually. Difficult? Undoubtedly. But politically savvy? No. Just smart business sense and a dash of rancor.

I keep seeing all these wonderful, starry-eyed monologues about how the internet will forever change the way politics is run, how it'll cure all ills and eventually (of course), those bastards that disagree with you will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. That isn't the sound of politics, because these people aren't politicians. It's the sound of religion- except now the religion is political invective.

So, bloggers, great job. You succeeded in being the beneficiaries of the obvious and poking around a confused media because you're both shooting so hard from each side it has no idea what it can do. You've become gatekeepers to an enormous cash cow, but don't have the real clout to keep the floodgates closed, because there're enough important blogs that it doesn't take any sort of agreement or platform between them to give a candidate exposure. But, above all, you're creating little bubbles filled to the brim with a kind of group-mind, perfectly separated from true opposing viewpoints with a powerfully whispered "troll." Very soon the political blogs will either fall into two groups: shrill hive-like structures and unknown policy wonks, on both sides. You can't create a shining future when you're using all your might to run towards the inoperative, rotten present.

Intrusive vs non-intrusive

[bagsc]

If you choose to go to a website, that's your choice. If they have a beowulf cluster with more bandwidth than God, with 100 live video feeds 24/7 for one candidate - you're choosing to go there, and it's not intruding on you. I don't care how they raised the money for it. IMHO, it's like visiting a campaign headquarters. That's public information.

And if I see one damned ad on TV, I want tougher regulations. That's intrusive. Like all this damned political spam. One deserves to be unregulated and one deserves to be banned.

Furthermore, if the RNC wants to have its own cable TV station (*coughox*) that it pays for, and the DNC wants one too, I don't see a problem with any amount of spending on that. As long as you can block those channels to prevent your kids from watching that trash...

Re:Intrusive vs non-intrusive

[Petskull]

You mean the 700 Club and Pat Robertson aren't funded by the RNC, or does that work the other way around?

Re:Intrusive vs non-intrusive

[revery]

If you choose to go to a website, that's your choice. If they have a beowulf cluster with more bandwidth than God, with 100 live video feeds 24/7 for one candidate - you're choosing to go there, and it's not intruding on you. I don't care how they raised the money for it. IMHO, it's like visiting a campaign headquarters. That's public information.


If you choose to watch television, that's your choice. If they have constant commercials with constant feeds for one candidate, you're choosing to go there, and it's not intruding on you. I don't care how they raised the money for it. IMHO it's like visiting a campaign headquarters. That's free speech.

For the purposes of your argument, there is no material difference between the internet and television.

Re:Intrusive vs non-intrusive

[IntrepidDeath]

Actually, the difference lies in that you would visit the website specifically to view political information about a candidate. IF you're watching television, your intent probably isn't to watch political ads that are displayed.

Re:Intrusive vs non-intrusive

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing all the bad publicity that the 700 Club generates for Republicans, it makes me wonder if Pat Robertson isn't funded by the DNC.

Re:Intrusive vs non-intrusive

[RexRhino]

And if I see one damned ad on TV, I want tougher regulations. That's intrusive. Like all this damned political spam. One deserves to be unregulated and one deserves to be banned.

TV ads are no more intrusive than web pages. You do not have to watch stations with commercial advertisments if you dont want to. You could watch cable stations without commercial advertisments (or, ones that don't accept political adverts)... you could watch DVDs, etc. Throwing out the Bill of Rights because you don't like TV ads is a little extreme (the Bill of Rights makes no exceptions for political advertisment, and while things like pornography might be debateable there is no debate whatsoever that the First Amendment was supposed to cover paid political advertising. Paid political advertisments are political speech and undebatably protected by the First Amendment.)

The real danger when it comes to political propoganda is public education, not TV commercials. It really is debatable if TV commercials are all that effective. But no-one can deny the effectiveness of the public school system in molding political thought and changing political beliefs... and in most places, public education is compulsary, unlike TV ads.

Re:Intrusive vs non-intrusive

[ClamIAm]

The problem with cable TV channels (at least, currently) is that if I subscribe to a cable package that includes Fox News, I mean, RNC News or whatever, a little slice of my subscription fee is supporting that station. Even if I have the channel blocked at the cable provider level, they still give that little slice of cash to a station I don't agree with (or perhaps I'm against the idea of paid political TV on principle). I'm not saying that a la carte pricing is the solution, I'm just pointing out the reality of the situation.

Re:Intrusive vs non-intrusive

[bughunter]

a beowulf cluster with more bandwidth than God

Heaven is wired??

So I assume they're on Ethernet.

I wonder, what is God's domain?

And, you know, there's only two things to do with all that bandwidth: pr0n and piracy. But since it's Heaven, they've probably got a content filter.

Hmm... all that bandwidth and no pr0n or warez? Sounds like Hell to me.

Re:Intrusive vs non-intrusive

[bagsc]

Obviously you can turn the TV off. And if someone is standing on the sidewalk in front of your house with a sign you disagree with, you can go back into your house. The point isn't that you don't have an alternative - you can always shut your eyes and plug your ears.

The point is I wasn't looking for it. If an ad were as innocuous as "look at our website for more info" I wouldn't mind. I'm all about the First Amendment, I'm just tired of modern political ads. They very rarely contribute any useful information to make a civic decision from.

People need to be dragged into the political process, and advertising could/should be used for that. But I'm so tired of morally repugnant attack ads flashing on TV every ten minutes. That's why I won't be watching TV this fall.

The real problem

[XanC]

Everybody's complaining about you being a Utopian-ist (ugh, sorry) for suggesting this, and that it would quickly degrade into simple bribery. Maybe they're right, but that doesn't change the fact that campaign finance laws are unconstitutional, plain and simple.

But the real problem is the federal government itself. The Founders didn't raise this issue because they set up a system where the states delegated a few, specific tasks to the federal government. It didn't (and shouldn't) matter who holds office, particularly, as long as he's competent to do the job.

Today, when the federal government takes power and treasure from us whenever it wants, recognizing no limits to its own authority, it does matter. And that's the problem.

Re:The real problem

[Sqwubbsy]

The Founders didn't raise this issue because they set up a system where the states delegated a few, specific tasks to the federal government.

No they didn't. The Federal government was convened and founded by citizens from the several states and NOT by the state legislatures by design because of the resulting ineffectiveness that would result.
Again, the States did not delegate, the citizens formulated. Big difference. I recommend Chernow's Hamilton for further illumination.

And you have recourse...it's called the Vote. Use it.

Great Chance for Bill O'Reilly Being President

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the most popular choices for president, among the blogger community, is Bill O'Reilly. He has a populist mindset, not a conservative one.

With the easing of restrictions on blogging in support of candidates, the bloggers will be out in force in 2008. O'Reilly has a good chance of becoming president if the damned leprechaun would just join the damned race.

Re:Great Chance for Bill O'Reilly Being President

[Curunir_wolf]

Wow. You're really stretching. Why so intent on looking for pessimistic view of this story? Can't you accept that sometimes beaurocrats can actually make the *right* decision from time to time. Sure, it's rare - but maybe this time the right decision was so obvious that even an idiot can see it.

Re:Great Chance for Bill O'Reilly Being President

[HTTP Error 403 403.9]

One of the most popular choices for president, among the blogger community, is Bill O'Reilly. He has a populist mindset, not a conservative one.

With the easing of restrictions on blogging in support of candidates, the bloggers will be out in force in 2008. O'Reilly has a good chance of becoming president if the damned leprechaun would just join the damned race.

What would his party platform be?

A hand on every (yah-yah), a vibrator in every (woo-hoo) and a falafel in every (meow)?

Re:Great Chance for Bill O'Reilly Being President

[Anonymous Coward]

[Bill O'Reilly] has a populist mindset, not a conservative one.

Riiiiiiiiight. And Fidel Castro has a populist mindset, not a socialist one.

Not to mention Castro probably knows the difference between a falafel and a loofah.

Re:Great Chance for Bill O'Reilly Being President

[aichpvee]

I don't know, but the debates would be legendary. He'd probably turn all red in the face and start shouting, "cut his mic!"

Re:Great Chance for Bill O'Reilly Being President

[Kierthos]

Yeah, and all he would have to do is pick Robert Novak for his VP choice, and the Daily Show jokes would just write themselves.

Kierthos

Do they get to protect their sources too?

[mi]

Can bloggers protect their sources, like "traditional media" journalists can?

In that case, anyone can avoid (or much delay) testifying on anything, by posting online something semi-relevant to the case and, having thus become a blogger, refuse to testify...

Re:Do they get to protect their sources too?

[Stonehand]

Ask Judith Miller.

Re:Do they get to protect their sources too?

[raoul666]

If you have first-hand knowledge of a crime, you can be called as a witness. You don't get to name yourself as a source, even if you are a journalist. If your knowledge is secondhand, you can't testify because it's hersay.

Re:Do they get to protect their sources too?

[mi]

Why, then, did Judith Miller and her colleague go through such troubles recently?

Grattitude is for the weak

[MAXOMENOS]

After all, who needs us lefties to ensure free speech when you agree with the Official Truth as dictated to you by the Party?

Don't Do That

[KarateExplosions]

You made me laugh so hard strawberry milk squirted out my nose. Oh, and I was laughing AT you, not WITH you.

Re:Don't Do That

[MindStalker]

I laughed pretty hard too.. And I actually watch him sometimes (though sometimes he gets on my nerves, enough with the missing blond girls and child molesters). But President?? Bwahhaha. And we've all done an offtopic comment to the top rating posting just to get it up there, but this had absolutly nothign to do with anything...

Isn't it obvious why blogging is exempt?

[Mance Rayder]

Campaign finance laws were put into place to keep the playing field even. When the issue of others campaigning on candidates' behalfs arose, such as PACs, laws were put in place against "soft money" advertising, on the same principle -- no one candidate should be able to outshout the other by commandeering the limited number of media available.

But there's now an unlimited number of resources available for speech. Let one party open as many blogs as they want to open, it won't stop the other party from opening their own and letting their positions be heard. Unlike television or radio, the audience isn't bound to a limited number of channels, and thus can't be dominated by any single party.

This is a good move by the FCC. I'm torn on the issue of CFR over traditional mediums, but only because my inner libertarian can't stomach regulation of free speech and my inner citizen is sick of watching politicians elected by the size of their war chest than the quality of their performance. This isn't an issue on the Internet (yet... wait until election year banner ads), and in no way does regulation have any place there. Again, bravo, FCC. About time.

Re:Isn't it obvious why blogging is exempt?

[ClamIAm]

Campaign finance laws were put into place to keep the playing field even.

You can't seriously believe this.

Re:Isn't it obvious why blogging is exempt?

[zippthorne]

No that's exactly why they were put into place. To make a nice even playing field with only two teams...

Re:Isn't it obvious why blogging is exempt?

[ArsenneLupin]

But there's now an unlimited number of resources available for speech. Let one party open as many blogs as they want to open, it won't stop the other party from opening their own and letting their positions be heard.

Not all blogs are born equal. For some mysterious reasons, some blogs or webpages attract more visitors than others...

But then, I'd rather trust Google than Diebold to chose the POTUS ;-)

Sovereignty

[XanC]

The states were members of the union at their own pleasure, up until 1865. They did not surrender their sovereignty to join, they delegated. They could take it back at any time their citizens chose.

Re:Sovereignty

[Sqwubbsy]

But the Federal Government was not founded by the States, but by delegations selected by the citizenry. A subtle, but important difference.

States are still free to cede from the Union, they just shouldn't expect to go without a fight.

Re:Sovereignty

[XanC]

It was ratified by the states, by a vote of each state's citizens. Citizens of several of the states later voted to leave. What's the problem?

I can accept that you and I disagree about this. But how do you justify coming down and trying to kill me over it?

Re:Sovereignty

[Sqwubbsy]

It was ratified by the people of each state, and not the States. Again, a subtle difference.

Also, those 'votes to leave' were illegal. See Texas v. White. Finally, I seem to recall the secessionist states firing the first shot. Something about a Fort Sumter or something.

Now, you want to leave, maybe we can work something out. You try to kill me while we're making a deal, well then, prepare to fight, hombre.

History is pretty cool. You should read some and not accept whatever tripe your history teacher was trying to push or what some cartoon suggested it was. It's actually fairly interesting.

Re:Sovereignty

[XanC]

Okay, now I know you're full of it.

The South offered to pay full compensation for all federal facilities with its borders. Lincoln and Seward strung them along for weeks, all the while planning to force the issue at Sumter in order to provoke war. Sure enough, in the middle of negotiations, an armed naval convoy shows up, in violation of all the promises Seward had made.

So the South took the fort. Shots were fired. Zero Yankees were killed. They were all allowed to return home, and did so.

Even after the event, and in fact throughout the war, the South was looking for peace and to buy out the federal presence in the region.

maybe we can work something out. You try to kill me while we're making a deal, well then, prepare to fight, hombre.

Looks like the shoe's on the other foot here.

Not gonna happen.

[MsGeek]

Three words. O'Reilly. Falafel. Loofah.

MOD PARENT UP

[Curunir_wolf]

The bill of rights was added to the constitution under duress - the constitutional congress didn't put those things in because these things were implied, since the constitution spelled out what the federal government was allowed to do - and they weren't allowed any powers not explicitly granted therein.

That said, congress *is* granted some rights to regulate elections in Article I, Section 4:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Although that speaks nothing to the *campaigning* for election, it has been stretched beyond recognition by creeping additional laws and a supreme court anxious to exert its own authority, much like the justification for regulating everything under the sun by claiming a "significant impact" principle on the regulation of interstate commerce.

But let's be clear - the more we buy into the notion that the bill of rights spells out the *only* rights we have, the more power the government will grab - and the erosion of those rights will also continue. How long before those rights are restricted to such a degree that they are meaningless?

Value of blogs

[typical]

Well, that's one rather pessimistic way to look at it.

I think that having more blogs is pretty much inarguably a good thing. Up until now, media didn't really approximate much of a free market. You can't compete with CNN because they have deals and control many of the channels to viewers.

However, if you start writing a decent blog, it's easy for various people to try to evaluate how useful your blog is. Google does this sort of thing for webpages already, and I would expect techniques to only become more advanced. Of course, maybe you can subvert various "reputation evaluating" services, but there is a low barrier to entry in this world. If Altavista starts to suck, Google can easily displace them.

So now you have radically reduced the barrier to entry into the media world, and you have systems for evaluating the worth of that media that will only become better.

I agree that things will not magically and instantly become perfect. There will be loopholes, and those loopholes will be exploited. There will be *many* years of ideas and improvements to come, and many unforseen problems that will have to be addressed. But I believe that the blog world has the potential to become far more valuable a source of information than the traditional media companies have been.

What about famous people?

[FleaPlus]

You do not have a first ammendment right to give money to your candidate for the very reason that Money IS speech. The person with the most money has more of a voice, violating the right to equal representation of the other people in the district.

People who are famous also have more of a voice. Should there be restrictions on what famous people are and aren't allowed to do, so that they don't "violate the right to equal representation"?

Equal representation just means that people are able to vote. If they choose to vote for who rich or famous people support, your beef should be with the voters, not the rich or famous people.

The only way to remove the corporate-whore money culture from washington is to REMOVE ALL INDIVIDUAL FUNDING of Candidates. All money for an election should go into one pool, then all the candidates on the ballot should get an equal proportion.

I suspect the Democrats and Republicans are trying to work towards your suggestion with their Campaign Finance Control laws, to ensure that third parties never have a chance. I'm sure those in power would -love- to be able to have that sort of control over who is and isn't allowed to receive campaign funding.

Re:What about famous people?

[LordKazan]

People who are famous also have more of a voice.

In all the replies to my post people keep speaking as if I was speaking of the candidates voice - I am not speaking about the candidates voice - I am speaking about the peoples

to ensure that third parties never have a chance.

Yes because All individuals on the ballot receiving equal money - no more, no less favors the Republicans and the Democrats.

I do that people atleast READ my posts before replying.

Re:What about famous people?

[FleaPlus]

In all the replies to my post people keep speaking as if I was speaking of the candidates voice - I am not speaking about the candidates voice - I am speaking about the peoples

As far as I can tell, citizens running for political office are people. Plus, the various Campaign Finance Control laws generally don't just control what a candidate is allowed to say or do, but also control what people who support or oppose that candidate are allowed to say or do.

Yes because All individuals on the ballot receiving equal money - no more, no less favors the Republicans and the Democrats.

Who writes the laws that determine who can and can't get on the ballot? It certainly isn't the Green or Libertarian Party.

I do that people atleast READ my posts before replying.

?

Re:What about famous people?

[LordKazan]

As far as I can tell, citizens running for political office are people. Plus, the various Campaign Finance Control laws generally don't just control what a candidate is allowed to say or do, but also control what people who support or oppose that candidate are allowed to say or do.

Your point in stating the obvious being?

Who writes the laws that determine who can and can't get on the ballot? It certainly isn't the Green or Libertarian Party.

Just like the last election I consider this simply more whining: the only examples of actual unfair laws got owned him court.

If you cannot collect enough signatures to get on the ballot, is there really any point for you to be on the ballot?

and I do ask that people atleast READ my posts before replying.

fixed

Be aware! This legalizes such activity...

[csoto]

but it doesn't necessarily make it 100% OK with your "corporation" or "union." For example, certain state agencies regulate this sort of activity. I'm certain a numbert of corporations have similar rules.

IRV? No

[Mr2001]

At the same time we should switch to instant-runoff voting,

I was with you until this. Instant runoff voting is a deceptively bad way to count ballots. It's easy to explain to a layman, but it has severe problems if you look beneath the surface. For example, it fails the monotonicity criterion, which means that sometimes, ranking a candidate higher in an IRV election can cause him to lose, when ranking him lower would cause him to win.

There are also problems with the amount of data needed to transmit IRV ballots for central counting; it's easier to physically ship all the ballots to a central location for counting, or perform several rounds of counting at regional stations with a recount after each candidate is eliminated, than it is to count the ballots locally and decide the winner by combining all the local counts.

IMO ranked ballots are a great idea, but IRV is about the worst possible implementation of ranked voting. A Condorcet system like the one used by Debian would be more predictable, easier to count, and would do a better job of satisfying voter preferences by choosing compromise candidates.

Re:IRV? No

[mpe]

There are also problems with the amount of data needed to transmit IRV ballots for central counting; it's easier to physically ship all the ballots to a central location for counting

In most parts of the world transporting ballot boxes for counting isn't a problem. Even if the counting procedure is complex in most US elections it really shouldn't matter becuase there can be several months before the results take effect.

Re:IRV? Imperfect, but better than alternatives

[rewinn]

But, under Arrow's impossibility theorem, no voting system is perfectly "fair" - monotonic, non-dictatorial, et cetera ---- so long as there are at least 2 voters and 3 candidates.

If no perfect system is possible, that's sad, but no reason not to go for a system that's better than today's risible mess.

I'm open to paid endorsement. RLY. Make some $$$

[Bushido Hacks]

I'm open to paid endorsement. Really. I can make some good money by supporting people and organizations, provided there is a mutual agreement.

Under the conditions that:
1) There is serious money involved. Say $200 for each endorsement.
2) I agree with their issues, that is I choose them based on what they support.
3) I can back out any time under any circumstances. Last thing I want to do is support something I really don't agree with.

Re:IRV? Imperfect, but better than alternatives

[Mr2001]

But, under Arrow's impossibility theorem, no voting system is perfectly "fair"

Correct. That doesn't mean, however, that all voting systems are equal. IRV fails most objectively defined criteria for voting systems.

If no perfect system is possible, that's sad, but no reason not to go for a system that's better than today's risible mess.

The fallacy of this statement is a false dichotomy: we don't have to choose between "today's risible mess" and IRV. There are many systems better than plurality voting, some of which are measurably worse than others, and switching to a system we know is inferior would be nearly as foolish as sticking with today's risible mess.

Finally!

[XanC]

That's how I see this issue, too, and it's a viewpoint I've rarely seen elsewhere. This is a great example of federalism at work.

What's weird is that it was the lefties who don't care about the Constitution who voted not to interfere with the land grab, and the conservatives who voted to stop it.

I guess "conservative" doesn't mean what it used to; now they just vote for what they think is right.

You're so witty.

[Anonymous Coward]

heh, you called the non-DNC news-source, "RNC" news (I think you meant to call it GOP news btw)

how drole.

Re:Don't Trust Them!

[slughead]

I can hear the thoughts running through you Bush hater's heads, "how can this be evil? This must be evil somehow. Must...Be....Evil...".

The blogosphere gives more representation to the right-wing agenda. True, there are [far, far(??)] more left-wing blogs for demographic reasons, however there aren't may news organizations that aren't disproportionately left-wing.

After all, it was blogging that destroyed Dan Rather's career. All news organizations submit lies as news at some point or another. With blogs out there, there's a sort of check on that, and with the media statistically more left wing than right, it's more likely to hurt the left.

It's all probably due to republicans painting themselves as a repressed minority. When Rather released those forged documents, people were genuinely pissed (or disillusioned). It's emotion that moves people on issues, not fact. Not now, not ever.

Among the things that brought people to the polls in record numbers was a genuine distrust for the other side: The right was thinking the left was lying its way to victory, and the left just plain hated and distrusted Bush.

And now, for the moment you've all been waiting for, how am I going to get my post -1 troll. Kerry and Bush were alike on the issues people were talking about: Gay Marriage and the War. Amazing how people are most incensed when both options are so very alike (NVidia Vs. ATI, for a nerdly example).

i can guess how this will play out

[Rodong]

"Independant" organisations set up banks of text to copy&paste to create the impression of not being affiliated, political activists of both sides of the spectrum + people who wants to make money copy & paste. Hell why not? i mean, all you need is a blogspot account or the equivalent to start raking home $$ Of course, it will pollute the blogosphere (yuck buzzword), as if it wasn't polluted enough with spamblogs. There are two sides of this for sure...This will make astroturfing quite simple.

Learn to accept Fox

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheesh. There is one moderate network that dares to present both sides (Fox) among all the rest that are left-wing, and a bunch of intolerant twits can't stand it.

Re:Learn to accept Fox

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderate? Fox? Hahahahahahaha! I'm no democrat by any means. But to call Fox moderate is like calling Communist Russia only a little socialist. Not even my Bush supporting Christian fundamentalist friend from NC believes that Fox is moderate.

If you think that Bill O'Reilly is anything other than a horribly obvious (but apparently effective) propogandist, then you, sir, require some classes in debate/logical fallacies.

I'll give you CNN is rather left leaning. Their website never has a good picture of a member of the Republican Party, always having their mouths agape in some moronic drooling pose. But at least their tactic is more subtly done!

Fox as moderate... hahahahahahhaha!

Re:Learn to accept Fox

[ClamIAm]

Sheesh. There is one network that dares to spin only one way (Fox) among all the rest that are bought by both parties, and a bunch of idiot twits can't stand it.

Responsibility

[neuromancer2701]

The greatest problem with McCain-FeinGold is that it absolves the Candidate of responsibility for the actions of Third party groups "George Soros" and "The Swiftboat Vets". If all money is given to the candidate, he/she would be responsible to the public for the action of the ads that are run. A candidate would be a lot "less" likely to run a negative ad that is tied directly to their campaign. I like the idea of companies being only able to come out and say "I am for this idea X", but there are always holes.

Shell game

[Erixxxxx]

The FEC decision is of course a good one, though symtomatic of a rediculous state of affairs.

As one person pointed out, as long as congressmen wield the authority they wield, they will be a valuable commodity. As we know, once you try to restrict or illegalize a commodity, all you do is create a black market in that commodity. This is why politicos (and corporations) are against things like the flat tax (and fair tax, etc); it takes away ones value as a commodity and the others ability to have legislation created which undermines its rivals. As long as congressmen have the ability to 'fine tune' tax rates/incentives, congressmen will be a commodity for sale, whether for sale in the open or behind closed doors.

As to the larger issue of campaign finance reform, much of this is caused by politicians in a non-proportional rep system behaving as if they were in, well, a proportional rep system. Politicians in the US are not, strictly speaking, there to represent their party; they are there representing people who live within a fixed geographic area. If some politicians ignore the instructions of their consituents and instead vote as their party wishes, then ~this~ practice needs to be addressed and rectified (by a stay in a penitentiary in my opinion). This voting-along-party-lines BS is why so many are disenfranchised; politicos have forgotten who their employers are. Organized political parties are part of the problem, not the solution. I would much rather see factions of mutual interest, which in the US would result in regional alliances most of all, probably.

As for publicly funded financing, yeah right; the parties dont have enough money. If a political party has problems getting money, that reflects peoples support for that party. The Greens and Libertarians dont have much money ~because~ they dont have much support. The Dems and Repubs have money ~because~ they have support. As the support for a party wanes, so does its ability to raise funds - this is a Good Thing. It forces parties to adopt policies/platforms that people want, or they dissappear and make room for parties that ~do~ reflect what people want. All this BS about public funding is being spouted by parties who are convinced they shouldnt have to deal with the fickle support of the people; they are convinced they are right and should be in office/have a loud voice anyway regardless of their level of public support (i.e the US Greens). If the Greens have a hard time collecting money, then maybe they should pull their heads out of their asses and start listening and representing rather than lecturing and dictating. They are one of many small parties who dont have a lot of money ~for a reason~, and that reason is they dont have much support.

Public political party/candidate 'pools' are just a way for parties to get around the nasty dirty little detail of actually building support.

Re:USA gets more corrupt every day

[Greatmoose]

Here, here! I get sooo tired of people complaining about the Patriot Act and the civil liberties it might theoretically abuse, but few speak out (except on /.) about the bill that ACTUALLY takes away a key civil liberty, the stupid McCain reform.

You're missing the point

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The problem with McCain Feingold is that it puts a major crimp in the activity of voluntary grass-roots-funded political organizations while leaving billionaires (who can afford to set up the whole operation) and unions free to spend as much as they want. It cripples ad-hoc organizations, hobbles large ones, and puts the power of the mainstream advertising machine in the hands of a small elite.

Which is PRECICELY what it was intended to do.

The importance of this decision is that it blocks the law from doing this on the internet - preserving the disruptive influence of the net's transfer of power into the hands of individuals.

Re:You're missing the point

[neuromancer2701]

I agree, but the people who run for office should be solely responsible for the ads that are run by/for them, then we don't have to worry about campaigns leaking stuff to the third party supporters.


love the sig line

This ignores the primary purpose of republics

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Politicians in the US are not, strictly speaking, there to represent their party; they are there representing people who live within a fixed geographic area.

That is a nice sentiment. But it's a desirable second-order effect, rather than the central purpose.

The primary purpose of a republic is to minimize civil war - by modeling it sufficiently accurately that the losers of elections will figure they'd also lose the civil war to reverse the election's result and thus will refrain from fighting it. This redicrects their efforts from violence to evangelism.

While the result tends toward keeping the "representatives" at least somewhat responsive to their constituents, that's neither necessary nor necessarily desirable. To perform its central function the system must also correctly model such as group-joining and demagogue-following.

(It doesn't do a good job of modeling assasination, which is why we still have them occasionally, and why "executive protection" for politicians has been raised to a fine art.)

Re:This ignores the primary purpose of republics

[Erixxxxx]

If your point is that a govt - any govt - is really just a social model in microcosm, much like some sort of sample grouping for stats analysis. Are you saying that govt is similar to putting a number of people (statistically representative of others) in an arena, we watch them have their soap operas, and we must adopt the solutions that group arrives at for similar problems in the real world? Im sorry but thats just plain silly.

Its completely irrelevent what the system models; we arent an audience on the sidelines watching this play, and we arent under any obligation to adopt the roles or choices of the actors. They arent there to represent us as statistical models; they are there to represent us as in "Follow our instructions, or lose your job".

Re:This ignores the primary purpose of republics

[Ungrounded Lightning]

If your point is that a govt - any govt - is really just a social model in microcosm,

Hell, no.

A government is a coercive organization that claims first refusal on all use of force and setting of rules for behavior.

I claim:
  - that REPUBLICS are an attempt to minimize the violence within the territories they control by doing such modeling in their decision making,
  - that that's the POINT of them,
  - that any institutional change that reduces the effectiveness of this modeling is dangerous and should be avoided, and
  - that this must be UNDERSTOOD, to avoid the temptation to "improve" them (for instance by making them "more fair") and thus break them.

They can be rotten. But the alternatives are SO much worse.

But what brought Rather down ...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

After all, it was blogging that destroyed Dan Rather's career. All news organizations submit lies as news at some point or another. With blogs out there, there's a sort of check on that, and with the media statistically more left wing than right, it's more likely to hurt the left.

I agree with your point in general. But what brought Rather down was not just his running with the story. He could have survived - with a black eye - by doing a quick 180 - or 90 ("Oops! Nevermind. I still think it's true but this doc is a fake.").

What took him out is his continued insistence on the documents' authenticity, in the face of postings that made it utterly obvious that they were not merely forged, but poorly forged. This kept the spotlight on his bias and widened it to cover and discredit his operations procedures and personnel.

This changed the perception of them from a perhaps-left-leaning news operation that made an error to an unreliable propaganda mill, not merely useless as a news source, but dangerous to your welfare if you believe their claims.

Re:But what brought Rather down ...

[slughead]

But what brought Rather down was not just his running with the story. He could have survived - with a black eye

Hah! You made a funny and you didn't even know it!

Three More Words...

[kbielefe]

William Jefferson Clinton

Re:Hi

[Quantam]

Very nice. If you hadn't been so intent on being a smartass you might have used a little logic before posting. Having submitted stories rejected at one point, only to be accepted when someone else submits them later, is a well-known phenomenon at Slashdot. Given how frequently it occurs, I'd be liable to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he DID submit the story earlier, and it was rejected; and he probably wasn't the only one to do so.

Who Cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares how the politicians get their money. Let them spend and take in all they want.

Re:IRV? Imperfect, but better than alternatives

[rewinn]

>There are many systems better than plurality voting

Such as ????

Re:IRV? Imperfect, but better than alternatives

[Mr2001]

Here you can find a list of a few ranked voting systems, including Borda, Condorcet methods, and even IRV. I believe most election reformers would consider them superior to plurality voting ("today's risible mess"). None of those systems are "perfect", but some are clearly better than others according to objective criteria.

Re:Ack! Thpppt!

[Arcane_Rhino]

Hmmm. A dead cat? Sounds like a winner.