Oregon Senator Stops Internet Censorship Bill

comforteagle writes "Senator Wyden of Oregon has objected to a bill in committee that if passed would have given the government the ability to censor the Internet. His objection effectively stop its current passing, forcing it to be introduced again if the bill is to continue — which it may not. Oregonians, please send this man pats on the back."

Comments

The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oregon

[kaptink]

The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oregon. Senator Stephen Conroy of Australia, take note.

Anbody want to

[Compaqt]

trash talk the filibuster now?

Re:Anbody want to

[Sprouticus]

"George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea. "

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Created.htm

Re:Anbody want to

[schnikies79]

One good use among the thousands of abuses is not enough justification to allow it continue.

Re:Anbody want to

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think the same of Torrents? Guns? That kind of logic is what governments use against us.

Re:Anbody want to

[kramer]

trash talk the filibuster now?

Except it wasn't a filibuster, or even close. It was killed in committee.

Re:Anbody want to

[DarkKnightRadick]

The fillibuster is an essential mechanism in Congress to keep the government gridlocked. That's a much better scenario than a government that's free to do as it pleases.

Re:Anbody want to

[causality]

"George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea. "

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Created.htm

Yes, but remember that originally the House was elected by popular vote while the Senators were appointed by the legislatures of their respective states. The "cooling" effect had a lot to do with being unconcerned with things like winning campaigns, ensuring that campaign contributions keep flowing, popular trends, and knee-jerk emotional issues (like fear-based security theater). Senators had more of a free hand to do what they personally believed should be done, compared to representatives in the House who always had to wet their finger to see which way the wind was blowing.

That purpose is largely defeated by having the senators elected by popular vote. Now they have to represent their campaign donors and supporters more than they represent their states, same as the House.

Re:Anbody want to

[Cwix]

That is the first time Ive seen anyone ever explain that. Thanks, I think anything that removes political contributions to elected officials is a good thing.

Re:Anbody want to

[Anonymous Coward]

One good ANYTHING is justification enough to allow that good thing to exist among the bad things.

Re:Anbody want to

[Reziac]

The bigger question is, how the hell do we get rid of the elected-senator system and go back to how it was before?? I can't see much chance of repealing the relevant Amendment. You'd hear all manner of propaganda wailing about how those evil pro-appointed-senator freaks wanted to take away your right to vote and to thereby "control" the gov't.

Remember too that the Founders *designed* the system to promote gridlock, under the excellent and well-demonstrated theory that gov't rushing into ANY action was a Bad Thing. Having the entire system dependent on campaign strategies and contributions defeats that all by itself (everything is pulling in the same basic direction: getting re-elected).

Re:Anbody want to

[hedwards]

The answer is a constitutional amendment that changes it back. Personally I don't want it to go completely back, I'd like to see the constitution changed to allow each state to decide whether to have the Senators appointed by the house delegation from the state or elected via popular vote.

For states such as CA, TX or NY et al., it would make it a lot harder to buy Senators, but in cases of states like Wyoming it's actually harder to buy a Senator now than it was prior to the 17th amendment being enacted.

Re:Anbody want to

[hedwards]

But, the congress isn't free to do as it pleases, the President can veto anything he wants, and the courts can set aside things as unconstitutional. It's only in recent times that the filibuster has become such a significant factor in the legislative process, and I doubt very much that using it to prevent much needed healthcare reform is really what it was intended for.

Re:Anbody want to

[fyngyrz]

Remember too that the Founders *designed* the system to promote gridlock, under the excellent and well-demonstrated theory that gov't rushing into ANY action was a Bad Thing.

Yeah... but also remember that one of the first things done was an usurpation of power, an end-run around article V, in the first congress - the authorization of border searches outside the bounds of the enumerated powers (and just a few years later, also in violation of the 4th amendment.)

The problem with the constitution is (a) there's no effective way to enforce it, and (b) there are no "teeth" to punish those who violate their oaths. Consequently, congress often rushes into things, some of which are extremely ill-advised, not to mention constitutionally unauthorized, and these things become law. Lately, the "for the children" and "TERRORISTS!" are the usual reasons for these lightning moves into moron territory, but it seems there's always something they're using for justification for high-speed blundering.

Re:Anbody want to

[fyngyrz]

The answer is a constitutional amendment that changes it back.

Yeah, first you have to get them to pay attention to the constitution, though.

Re:Anbody want to

[Reziac]

The lack of enforceability and teeth is indeed a problem, perhaps THE problem, unless you define a violation as treason. I'm not sure that's a bad solution, actually.

Re:Anbody want to

[ShanghaiBill]

The bigger question is, how the hell do we get rid of the elected-senator system and go back to how it was before??

No, the bigger question is: "How do we get people to read history books?", so they understand why the old system was worse than what we have today. Democracy is not perfect, but if you really think that eliminating it is a good idea, you are an idiot. Please name a single country without an elected legislature where the citizens have greater rights than Americans.

Re:Anbody want to

[lgw]

Using the fillibuster to prevent veyr much unneeded nationalization of our healthcare system by a bill that no one even bothered to read before voting on it was exactly what it was for. Sadly, it didn't happen. The Senate was supposed to allow cooler heads to prevail - to slow down the process enough to at least read a bill before voting on it (the healthcare bill accidentally removed all medical insurance for congress and their staffers unti 2014, which is about a clear as it can be that no on read it).

Re:Anbody want to

[misexistentialist]

We can't really go back to the Founders' patrician system because "duty" has become completely meaningless to the moneyed/political class. Term limits are a better solution for moderating such morally and intellectually weak material.

Re:Anbody want to

[DarkKnightRadick]

Agreed, but lets not forget that the Senate was meant to represent states rights/interests - as defined by the rest of the Constitution - by the states electing two members of the state legislature to represent them in the federal government. The people were supposed to be represented only by the House.

Re:Anbody want to

[Amorymeltzer]

Checks and balances is an inherently good system. How well it works is a different issue, but the filibuster doesn't fall into that system. The filibuster is a way for the legislature to stop itself, and no one else. It's a product of bitter polarization within a two-party system, but all it does is weaken the legislature.

Re:Anbody want to

[falconwolf]

I think anything that removes political contributions to elected officials is a good thing.

So you don't believe in the freedom of speech? Because that is what barring contributions is, silencing speech. As a low income individual I don't enjoy as many ways to spread my speech as others but if I can join others who feel or think the same then we can all contribute pooling our resources to get our message out.

Falcon

Re:Anbody want to

[Reziac]

Balancing democracy with something to prevent mob rule, which is pretty much what we've come to today, is hardly "eliminating" it. If you think pure unfettered democracy is itself such a good idea, you need to find yourself, as the old saw goes, in the position of the sheep when it and 3 wolves are voting on what's for dinner.

Re:Anbody want to

[Samantha Wright]

It's bribery, patrone. Please remember that as a self-described low-income individual you and any coalition will never be able to overcome the campaign contributions made by high-income individuals, coalitions, and organizations. Influencing your elected representatives should be a simple matter of writing a letter and nothing else.

Re:Anbody want to

[ultranova]

The lack of enforceability and teeth is indeed a problem, perhaps THE problem, unless you define a violation as treason. I'm not sure that's a bad solution, actually.

It is, for two reasons:

1) It won't solve the problem. Who's going to prosecute those who violate the Constitution - you?

2) It makes the definition of "treason" somewhat arbitrary. We've already seen that Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is; do you really want treason to be whatever the Supreme Court says it is?

I'm of the opinion that "treason" should be completely removed as an offence. You can only betray that which you owe loyalty to, and it's hard to argue that you owe loyalty to people living on the other side of the continent. Remove "treason" from law, and handle spying and such through ordinary law, and things get a lot simpler and fairer.

Re:Anbody want to

[Cwix]

Money is not free speech as far as I'm concerned. I think that no one person/organization/corporation should not be allowed to give more then 50 dollars to a politician, and no more then 300 a year total.

It would be even better if there was public financing for all politicians.

How come you believe that I should have to give money to get my voice heard. Why should I bribe my politician?

It turns the measure of my voice into the amount of money I have. Which means that corporations have a much louder voice then I do. Thats wrong

Re:Anbody want to

[ultranova]

Please name a single country without an elected legislature where the citizens have greater rights than Americans.

According to Press Freedom Index 2010, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand, Estonia, Ireland, Denmark, Japan, Lithuania, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, Germany, Australia and United Kingdom. You're at the 20th rank. Shame on you, USA, especially considering your 1st amendment. And good for you, Finland, for as a citizen I accept nothing less than topping the chart. Which, of course, is why you topped the chart, which is a direct challenge for the rest of you for the next year.

Which is pretty impressive, considering how Finland has it's own version of the Great Firewall of China. Shame on you, United States, you are at the 20th state, below even Germany. On the other hand, all the Nordic countries besides Denmark vie for number one position.

Re:Anbody want to

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

and the courts can set aside things as unconstitutional.

What? You mean those damn activist judges!!?!

Re:Anbody want to

[Anonymous Coward]

Removing elected senators would not balance the system. Do you really want to argue that Senators appointed by a system that is one more step removed from citizenry oversight wouldn't have passed this bill? Believe me, it's not the citizenry who's influence is pushing these types of censorship bills. Removing their electoral oversight would only grease the wheels for those that ARE pushing for this type of legislation.

Re:Anbody want to

[decoy256]

Mod parent "+1, The Only Gorram Sensible Comment in This Thread"

Re:Anbody want to

[Teancum]

Having even been a politician running for office, I can't think of any way that campaign contribution != bribe.

It really is the same thing. I would love to learn how to run a political campaign without either stealing taxpayer money (aka "publicly financed elections") or straight out bribery.

On the positive side, most small time elections end up costing so much to run a campaign that the contributions to help run the campaign are incidental and most of it comes out of your own pocket. Then again, that ensures only the wealthy can afford to run for public office and us poor peons don't ever have a prayer of getting "one of our own" into public office.

There are some ways to run a guerrilla political campaign that can substantially minimize the campaign costs with the replacement of a large group of volunteers who are effectively managed to "get the vote out" for a particular candidate. It takes work and effort to do that, however, and a fair bit of luck on the side too. Even with these kind of campaigns, however, I really don't know how to completely eliminate some of the basic costs far and above the simple filing fee. It simply is expensive to run a political campaign.

The sad thing, too, is that expensive political advertisements work too. I wish that fewer people would pay attention to the ads and instead actually take the time to research the candidates, but most people usually aren't that careful about their vote except for perhaps the marquee political office of the day. President of the USA? Yeah, most people know about what brand of toothpaste they are using and their mother's maiden name. But how much do you know about the city councilman that you voted for? Most would be lucky if they've even seen the candidate's name before they got to the voting booth.

Re:Anbody want to

[Teancum]

In theory, the U.S. Senate was seen as a sort of continuation of the Continental Congress, where it was a meeting of the states and the House was a meeting of "the people". In that sense, having senators as representatives of the state legislature made a whole lot of sense. In that situation, I think it might be a good idea to go back to that original system.

The problem is that as a matter of practice it really didn't end up as a contest within the state legislatures (even if it there always a formal vote for the Senators in those bodies). Instead, the real political contest was usually at the state convention for the majority political party or within the majority party caucus at the state legislature.

If I would make a change, I would remove terms of service from Senators entirely, with the ability for state legislatures to appoint or recall a senator at the will or whim of that legislature. By state law (not federal) they could decide the terms or conditions which would apply to senators for their terms of service and when they are up for review by that body and that the senator would be quite literally a representative of the state government itself within the U.S. Senate. Essentially the equivalent of an ambassador to the UN or something like that, but on the federal level. Such a move might put a whole lot more accountability on the part of Congress too. Could such a system be subject to bribery and scandal? Yes, but it would sure make a senator pay attention to the leadership of the state government and would make putting a physical office in the state capital something simply required by the senator. They would also simply have to pay attention or even physically be present when the state legislature was in session.

I would be curious about how that would change the nature of the U.S. Senate if a change like that happened.

Re:Anbody want to

[falconwolf]

I can't think of any way that campaign contribution != bribe.

You then need to learn the definition of "bribe". That definition is "to give money or presents to someone so that they will help you by doing something dishonest or illegal".

Falcon

Re:Anbody want to

[falconwolf]

Money is not free speech as far as I'm concerned.

How then does the candidate pay for advertising? Town meetings? Websites? They have to be paid for. And unless you want only the wealthy in office then candidates have to raise donations.

It would be even better if there was public financing for all politicians.

I don't know about you but I do not want any of my money, your money, or others money, and that is where those tax dollars come from, to support any candidate I oppose. If you want to support that candidate then you can contribute to them. Nor do I want my throat to be denied airtime.

How come you believe that I should have to give money to get my voice heard.

Ding Dong!!! That is exactly what taxpayer financing is stupid!!! How idiotic and imbecilic can you get?

Which means that corporations have a much louder voice then I do. Thats wrong

I said nothing about corporations having the same rights. I have actually said corporations should not them.

You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

Keep that in mind next tyme.

Falcon

Re:Anbody want to

[theycallmeB]

No, that purpose was entirely defeated by endemic corruption in the selection of Senators by state legislatures: buying off 50 to 100 part-time local legislators is actually far cheaper and easier than buying off 50%+1 of the voting public. Direct election of Senators was a necessary solution to a problem the framers of the Constitution did not anticipate.

For a modern example of how things would work, but perhaps with more hair than normal, just Google 'Blagoviech.'

Re:Anbody want to

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Press Freedom Index 2010, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand, Estonia, Ireland, Denmark, Japan, Lithuania, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, Germany, Australia and United Kingdom.

Please name a single country without an elected legislature.

Given that I know at least half of those countries do in fact have some form of elected legislatures, I'm going to call you on your lack of reading comprehension.

Re:Anbody want to

[Reziac]

Term limits haven't been such a great success either. In California, they've led not to a betterment of the system, but rather to a great deal more gaming of the electorate.

And I'd daresay the average moneyed class member has a better grasp of duty than does the average dole-collector. But we have about 2% moneyed class and 40% dole collectors, so given that all their votes count equally, guess who's really in charge.

Re:Anbody want to

[Woodmeister]

"to give money or presents to someone so that they will help you by doing something dishonest or illegal"

Oh. Such as either voting for what the people of the state believe or truly need, instead of bending over backwards for the major campaign contributors, screwing the people of the state over?

Re:Anbody want to

[Squirmy McPhee]

That purpose is largely defeated by having the senators elected by popular vote. Now they have to represent their campaign donors and supporters more than they represent their states, same as the House.

That said, the primary reasons the 17th Amendment passed, which mandated election of senators by popular vote, were repeated bribery scandals and deadlocked state legislatures, causing some states to go years without one of their senators. Even before the 17th Amendment, some states used referenda to direct the legislatures as to who should be seated in the Senate, so some senators who were ostensibly chosen by the state legislatures were actually elected by popular vote.

At any rate, my point not that you are wrong, of course, but that the old way was not necessarily better than what we have now. I guess it comes down to whether you think it's better that a senator be beholden to shady state legislators or shady lobbyists....

Re:Anbody want to

[Reziac]

Well, there is that, but ordinary courts can be a great deal more arbitrary and capricious than SCOTUS. So that's not really a good solution either.

But what I had in mind was that Congress passing a law that isn't directly founded in the Constitution could be defined as treasonous (ie. as working against the country's best interests) and that incontrovertable support for such laws (ie. voting for same) might be sufficient as evidence.

Yeah, that's a broad brush, but I think one of the issues we're seeing is that the Constitution is being pecked to death one marginal law at a time, so maybe a broad swath of protection for its principles is needed.

Re:Anbody want to

[Anonymous Freak]

This wasn't a filibuster. This was a committee member filing an objection in such a way that it will require the committee to bring it up again.

Which they very well might. It was mostly the timing (at the end of a congressional session,) that made the objection "fatal" to the bill.

Re:Anbody want to

[Cwix]

Public financing.. get over it. Id rather support someone I don't like then have them bought and paid for by a single individual or entity. If we all pay for all the politicians, then they have to listen to the people. You know the ones they are supposed to be representing.

So you want our politicians bribed by a select few. You are whats wrong with America. You seem to be happy with the system we got. Well im not.. and you calling me names isnt going to change that.

Re:Anbody want to

[Tanktalus]

I am fascinated by your views and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

The only sarcastic bit in the above statement is the part that implies I have time for more email :-) Your proposal molds the Senate into something more akin to a meeting of diplomats of sovereign states, much like the U.N.. It is an intriguing idea and, thus far, I'm relatively convinced it'd be better than what you guys have now. It'd also serve to highlight your country's name: United States of America. As in, a bunch of nearly-sovereign states, all united with a common government provding a federation (federal) of said states.

Mind you, I'm always in favour of more power lower to the ground (smaller jurisdictions) instead of more abstract. Which means I'm not in favour of things like the U.N. in general. And your proposal, in essence, highlight's the federal government's power as an agreement by the states as opposed to the reverse.

Re:Anbody want to

[falconwolf]

So you want our politicians bribed by a select few.

No, I want to be able to give to those I support, and I don't want any tax money going to those I oppose. Years ago I used to check in a box on federal income tax forms saying I wanted a dollar to go to public financing, but I stopped doing it. I only want my money going to those I support.

Falcon

Re:Anbody want to

[Cwix]

That's what your saying, cause if everyone gave a few dollars to be shared, then no one would have to worry about one entity giving billions.

I'm sorry that doesn't seem to make sense to you.

You seem to think that your individual donation means something It doesn't even make a blip on the screen compared to what a corp donates. Why would a politician care about your donation. He doesn't, not really, he cares about the donation from the Koch brothers. Where will this politicians loyalty lay? Well Ill give you 1 guess.

Re:Anbody want to

[Anonymous Coward]

Remove the left wing liberal influence from government. It was Wilson and his ilk that made it possible in the first place.

Re:Anbody want to

[Reziac]

Now that set of ideas I *really* like. I do think you're right, it would vastly enhance accountability. I especially like the idea of the Senators having to be at home to participate in and get their direction from the state legislatures, which would by necessity mean that both state and federal were part-time affairs, thus less likely to spend their time (and our money) micromanaging everything.

Re:Anbody want to

[Reziac]

An AC opines, "Remove the left wing liberal influence from government. It was Wilson and his ilk that made it possible in the first place."

Can't disagree with that at all :)

Re:Anbody want to

[Schadrach]

Actually, you did. Something about how not being able to gather a bunch of people together under a single legal entity and have it spend funds costs you your freedom of speech?

Re:Anbody want to

[Anonymous Coward]

I can name a couple countries that have elected representative and have more rights than Americans.

Re:Anbody want to

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps a bigger question is 'How do we get people to read the constitution?' so they know the fundamentals of the system they have.

The US is a Republic; see article 4, section 4, clause 1: 'The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...' We can throw on democratic trappings but we are not, nor ever have been, fundamentally, a democracy.

Re:Anbody want to

[Teancum]

Since law makers are, by definition, the folks who write and make the laws, what they do as long as they get the majority of the chamber that they sit in to support their crazy idea would be by its very definition legal.

In other words, government officials can't do something illegal because they make the laws which define what is legal.

Dishonesty? Yes. That is why Charles Wrangle got into trouble yet was able to keep his seat. Funny thing how that worked out, wasn't it?

Elected officials go before an ethics board, not a courtroom (usually) unless they are so inept that they actually commit a felony that the rest of the members of their chamber or legislative body thinks is blatantly wrong. It is still pretty hard to do and there are a great many immunities for elected officials.

Re:Anbody want to

[Anonymous Coward]

A healthcare overhaul has been kicking around for decades. The one that passed was basically the one Dole counter-proposed to the Clinton bill in the early 90's. Cooler heads have not only considered the bill but died from old age. The notion that the health care law was some new unconsidered thing is a tired reactionary canard.

Re:Anbody want to

[causality]

So you want our politicians bribed by a select few.

No, I want to be able to give to those I support, and I don't want any tax money going to those I oppose. Years ago I used to check in a box on federal income tax forms saying I wanted a dollar to go to public financing, but I stopped doing it. I only want my money going to those I support.

Falcon

In that case...

I don't want my tax dollars being used to support a war I don't agree with. I don't want them used on entitlement programs that I consider to be straight-up vote-buying. I don't want them used to build a "bridge to nowhere" as part of typical pork-barrel politics. I don't want them used to support drug prohibition or any other victimless-crime enforcement because I oppose those on principle. I don't want them used to perpetually extend copyright. I don't want them used to pay a salary to people who spend even one picosecond looking for a way to censor the Internet.

Guess what? No government official cares what I want. I owe that tax money no matter how I feel about its use. If I don't pay up, the government will send men with guns (known as police) to take my wealth by force. If I really refuse to pay up they may also imprison me.

Where does this notion come from that you'd be deprived of some crucial choice if it were required that all elections be publically financed? There is no precedent for it. You don't get that choice anywhere else. You mean to say that of all the possible uses of your tax money that you might not like, this is the issue that troubles you? How is that even possible?

Personally I have no problem with public campaign financing. If it is implemented I hope the amount allocated to each candidate is extremely generous. Then I hope all other forms of campaign funding become illegal bribery with a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 20 years for both the one offering the bribe and the recipient. The only reason there is so much corruption is because we so thoroughly tolerate it.

I'd be glad to fund politicians I dislike. This would serve a crucial function. It would mean that other voters can choose to vote for those candidates even if I personally wouldn't. I want them to have that choice and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.

The whole point of public financing is that the candidate most desired by the voters would win because money would be equal, assured, and thus taken out of the equation. Then the only differences among politicians would be their politics. Right now it's a contest of who can raise the most money and if you don't believe that, do the research yourself. Organizations (incl. corporations) wouldn't be able to support candidates for the same good reasons that organizations don't get to vote -- they're not human beings.

Re:Anbody want to

[Rakarra]

I simply think that it's absolute bullshit that campaign contributions are considered "speech."

We've institutionalized bribery. What a fantastic system.

Re:Anbody want to

[riverat1]

Money is not free speech, it is merely a means of amplifying speech. I see no problem with limiting the "gain" available to limit the volume to a tolerable level.

Re:Anbody want to

[riverat1]

I don't think I want to see the Senate become a non-elected body again. One problem I see with it though is that it gives low population states excessive power since each state has an equal number of Senators.

An idea I've been toying with is to completely change the Senate by having the election for the Senate being a party vote, not a vote for an individual. It would be a national vote where you vote for a specific party and each party gets the number of Senators corresponding to their percentage of the vote. The party could then appoint whoever it chose for those Senate positions. I imagine it would still be mostly Democrats and Republicans (at least at first) but I could see there being 5 or so Libertarians, a few Greens and who knows what else. It would better match the national political picture than what we have now.

That's probably too radical to ever have a chance of being enacted but it's intriguing to me none the less.

Re:Anbody want to

[riverat1]

AC is informative, the bill that passed is substantially like the one Senator Robert Dole proposed in reaction to Bill Clinton in the 90's.

Re:Anbody want to

[dbIII]

At the same time, how about a President selected from the party with the most votes and easily removable by the same when they fail? Bush was purely ornamental for at least a year and would have been better off replaced by McCain or pretty well anybody apart from Rumsfeld. The current system is just a bit too close to an elected Monarchy for comfort in situations like the last few years of the Playboy Prince Bush.

Re:Anbody want to

[Reziac]

An interesting concept, but I think what it would become in short order is a resurgence of union intimidation on the Dem side (much as has happened historically), and pretty soon fairly one-sided control.

I like some other poster's notion about having the Senator come into office however the individual state desires (elect, appoint, whatever) but then acting solely as that state's ambassador to DC, with full accountability to the state legislature, and a requirement of being present during state legislative sessions.

Which would perforce make both DC and state legislatures part-time propositions. As one of the big problems with gov't is that it's become its own fulltime big business, I like anything that reduces its influence, and I think this would help.

Re:Anbody want to

[Reziac]

We kinda already have that with the nominating process... only diff I can see with your proposal is that the voting happens first and the nominating second; I doubt it would make any real improvement. (And didn't it originally work something like that? I don't recall offhand.) There is always so much party infighting that I think at best we'd wind up with some poor-second compromises, or most-popular but least-competent (as we've got warming The Big Chair right now).

Re:Anbody want to

[dbIII]

No I mean removable in office without spending a year or three on impeachment. The sort of system in place in the UK and a pile of other countries.

Re:Anbody want to

[suutar]

One problem I see with it though is that it gives low population states excessive power since each state has an equal number of Senators.

I thought that was the entire point of having 2 for each state, so that there's at least one venue where WY has an equal voice to CA.

Re:Anbody want to

[Reziac]

That at least would be improvement, I agree. There needs to be a fairly quick mechanism for removal -- at least once sufficient evidence accumulates. Maybe a "moderation" system whereby once sufficient negatives accumulate, you're outta there, no trial or impeachment required.

Re:Anbody want to

[falconwolf]

That's what your saying, cause if everyone gave a few dollars to be shared, then no one would have to worry about one entity giving billions.

What did I say? What I said was I wanted to support those I support and not give to those I oppose. I also want to freely be able enjoy my speech. If I want to pay for ads for a candidate, I don't want government telling me I can not do so. Whether I am in the the ads myself or I get others who also support the candidate to appear, or whether we pool our resources to produce the ads. Then place them.

I'm sorry that doesn't seem to make sense to you.

By the same terms, I'm sorry you can't understand that. I don't want my speech limited by you, government, or anyone else. I thought it was BS the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations could fund political ads, a corporation is not a person and does not have the same rights.

You seem to think that your individual donation means something It doesn't even make a blip on the screen compared to what a corp donates.

So thousands of people donating to Obama's campaign didn't help him get elected? HAHA!!!

he cares about the donation from the Koch brothers.

If anything the Koch brothers funded McCain not Obama, yet Obama not McCain is president. How intelligent does a person have to be to understand that? However much apparently you're not intelligent enough.

Oh, and not all of the wealthy support the same candidates. While the Koch brothers support Republicans, and anti-global warming groups, George Soros who Forbes ranked 35th richest person in the world in 2010 supports Obama. And Warren Buffet said raise my taxes.

Now can you understand that? Or are you too stupid?

Falcon

Re:Anbody want to

[Cwix]

Dont feed the trolls. Sorry I fed you yesterday, there is no saucer or milk for you today. Shoo.. go on now.. Shoo.

Re:Anbody want to

[riverat1]

I think you give unions credit for way more power than they have and what about corporate intimidation of politicians in general? When corporations can freely spend their money on elections it's a new ball game. This past election corporate interests were able to outspend unions something like 10 to 1.

Re:Anbody want to

[riverat1]

Yes, that was the point. I'm not sure I agree with it any more. California has one Senator for about each 18,500,000 people while Wyoming has one Senator for about each 272,000 people. That's pretty unbalanced. If Senators are meant to represent a state as an entity then they should have to consult with state government instead of the people.

Re:Anbody want to

[Reziac]

That may be, but corporations don't have nearly as direct a control over voters as unions have historically had. Poll watching has somewhat ended that abuse, but not entirely. Also, I was astonished when I looked up contribution numbers to see that big corps actually gave more to Dem candidates, in total. Talk about cutting your own throat in pursuit of short-term advantages....

Re:Anbody want to

[riverat1]

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say unions have direct control over voters.

Corps give to those in power to further their own interests. I don't think they gave more to Dem's this past election cycle like they did in 2008. Also because of the SCOTUS Citizens United decision there were massive independent expenditures that were mostly on the Rep's side this year.

Re:Anbody want to

[falconwolf]

Actually, you did. Something about how not being able to gather a bunch of people together under a single legal entity and have it spend funds costs you your freedom of speech?

Point out where I even said "single legal entity".

Falcon

Re:Anbody want to

[falconwolf]

government officials can't do something illegal because they make the laws which define what is legal.

Oh really? So all that money congress spend investigating Rep Charles Rangel was wasted money? And Alaska Sen Ted Stevens was not convicted in 2008 for corruption in a court room not by an ethics board?

Falcon

Re:Anbody want to

[falconwolf]

I simply think that it's absolute bullshit that campaign contributions are considered "speech."

Whether you like it or not it costs money to advertise. Heck without ads I doubt Slashdot would exist now.

Falcon

Re:Anbody want to

[falconwolf]

I see no problem with limiting the "gain" available to limit the volume to a tolerable level.

Neither do I, they're called earmuffs. Or you can avoid it by going another way. Political speech is about having as many willing people hear your message as you can. Limiting that is limiting speech.

Falcon

Re:Anbody want to

[lgw]

Would you sign a contract, based on a statement that "it's substantially like a contract you read several years ago"? Or would you actually read it first? Should we not hold lawmakers to at least this level of dilligence when passing actual laws? Or is it entirely about which team wins the big game these days, consequences for citizens be damned?

Re:Anbody want to

[riverat1]

When they use their wealth to gain more attention from my representatives than I can get then they're abridging my rights.

Re:Anbody want to

[riverat1]

I don't think the fact that the bill is similar to Dole's proposal has anything to do with it getting passed. I just pointed out that it's not that different from Republican proposals in the past.

I don't give a damn about which team wins. I care about results. I think the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is terrible because it didn't go far enough. It should have at least allowed me to buy my health insurance through Medicare if I choose to. Instead it gives health insurance companies a bunch of guaranteed customers. But it's better than what we've had up to now.

As a person suffering from one of those dreaded preexisting conditions (type II diabetes) if I wasn't employed I'd have a difficult time getting affordable insurance coverage without it if I wasn't covered by my employers plan.

You may not want to help cover people who can't afford the medical care they need but in fact you are already doing so because hospitals have to charge enough to cover the cost of people who use the emergency room (the most expensive place to get it) for their medical care and then don't pay. In the US we pay nearly twice as much for medical care as any other comparable nation (18% of GDP vs. 10% of GDP). The only way we could make the costs comparable with our current system is if we denied emergency care to someone who couldn't pay. That's a moral place I'm not willing to go to.

Re:Anbody want to

[lgw]

If your health insurance is provided by employers, employers have a lot of influence over your life. Employers like this.

If your health insurance is provided by the government, the government has a lot of influence over your life. The government likes this.

If we could actually shop for insurance on some open market, we wouldn't have a lot of these problems, because we'd regain the power that customers have over sellers, and you wouldn't have to worry about preexisting conditions every time you switched employers or moved. Of course, with something like Type Fat Diabetes, you don't need insurance against unexpected costs from that, you need to budget for the perfectly expectable expenses. Not that in an actual market there wouldn't be a plan for you, to smooth out those costs over time.

Health insurance as charity is a different matter entirely - because the simply fact is that diseases are contagious. But it needs to be seen as charity, not an entitlement. There are some great example programs around to model a nationwide system on - Houston has a good one (or had when I lived there) where if you signed some papers that said you were poor, you got a card that acted like an HMO membership. There's wasn't a free rider problem becuase it was a really crappy HMO - very long waits for anything. But if you really were unemployed, waiting all day for free medical care was a reasonable trade-off. (Emergency care was different - there were only a few hospitals you could go to, but they were the ones with the good trauma units anyway, so with a real life-threatening emergency you'd want to go to those regardless of insurance).

Re:Anbody want to

[falconwolf]

When they use their wealth to gain more attention from my representatives than I can get then they're abridging my rights.

You don't have the right to have a representative pay attention to you. What you do have the right to do is seek out another person who will listen. And if you're a citizen and are old enough you have the right run against a rep who will not listen to you.

My reps certainly didn't listen to me, or the majority of voters. Both representatives and senators voted for the health care insurance reform bill despite the fact that most people opposed it. What did Nancy Pelosi say? She would pass it no matter what the people thought. Like the fruit cake she is she said we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it. That is her personally saying that in the video, not a substitute or actor.

Now tell me, who was she listening too? Certainly not voters.

Falcon

Re:Anbody want to

[riverat1]

Well, Ron Wyden appeared to pay attention to me just fine the two times I've talked to him briefly. We don't always agree on things and he has other constituents to listen too. One thing that Wyden is famous for here is that he holds a town hall meeting in every county of the state at least once a year and pays attention to their concerns. (If you don't know about Oregon, 2/3's of the state, east of the Cascade Mountains is hard core Republican). It showed in this past election. Wyden won 57-43% while the Governor's race was won by less than 1%.

I suspect if you took those against the PPAAC Act and divided them into those who thought it went too far and those who thought it didn't go far enough you would find that, with the people who favored the bill, substantially more than half the population wanted that bill or something stronger.

Re:Anbody want to

[Teancum]

It should be pointed out that Ted Stevens was acquitted of his charges, although the acquittal didn't happen until well after the election he was running for.... which brings up another point.

Far more often than not "ethics charges" are used for political purposes, mainly to force some "popular" opponent to either leave or drop out of a political race, or to cloud the election process so much that many people will vote against the guy.

I'm not saying that a lawmaker can't do things that are illegal as an individual, but it is much harder to do so and many things which would be illegal for individuals to do are often excepted for political leaders. A good current example is how Nancy Pelosi doesn't have to go through the scanners whenever she has to fly between Washington DC and San Francisco. My, how convenient is that. All it takes is convincing a majority of those in the legislative body that something should be exempted for them and them alone, and it becomes law. I could give a great many other examples that would churn your stomach.

I'm sorry I misspelled the name Charles Rangle. I didn't know I had to bend over so hard to the grammar Nazis here.

Re:Anbody want to

[falconwolf]

One thing that Wyden is famous for here is that he holds a town hall meeting in every county of the state at least once a year and pays attention to their concerns.

And how are those townhall meeting paid for? Out of pocket, contributions, or taxpayers? Each has problems, out of pocket means only the wealthy can afford it. Taxpayers paying means freeloaders can game the system. And contributions possibility means the candidate is beholden to contributors, but if those contributors are voters in the district what's wrong with that?

Oh, and please notice that as I said earlier, I don't believe corporations and unions should have the same rights of freedom speech, not politically. Nor should industry trade groups. But I don't have a problem with individuals paying voluntarily, none when Ross Perot ran for president, or when Meg Whitman spent $109 million of her own money for the governorship of California. When her campaign spending topped $140 million many pundits wailed about the "corrosive effect on basic democratic principles." And who won the race? Jerry Brown, her democratic opponent.

Falcon

Re:Anbody want to

[falconwolf]

It should be pointed out that Ted Stevens was acquitted of his charges

Ted Stevens was convicted of the charges he faced. But because the DA didn't share all the information gathered with his attorneys the conviction was overturned. The trial judge even appointed a special prosecutor to investigate whether the district attorneys broke the laws.

I'm not saying that a lawmaker can't do things that are illegal as an individual

But you did say it. Not in the same way as above "as an individual", but I copied and pasted what I replied to: "government officials can't do something illegal because they make the laws which define what is legal."

many things which would be illegal for individuals to do are often excepted for political leaders

Politicians do that all the tyme. They even give the government waivers to laws they pass. For instance in the US the largest polluter is the government. I don't know how much weight it carries, it is a Marxist site after all, but Political Affairs has this: U.S. Military – The World's Largest Polluter. The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, which has the liberal idea of liberty and small government asks the question America's largest polluter – guess who and concludes it's the United States government.

A good current example is how Nancy Pelosi doesn't have to go through the scanners whenever she has to fly between Washington DC and San Francisco.

Because she's third in line to be president of the USA, until January, she gets an Airforce jet for her trips. But I bet if she had to go through security like almost every other flier she'd put a stop to the scanners and pat-downs.

I'm sorry I misspelled the name Charles Rangle. I didn't know I had to bend over so hard to the grammar Nazis here.

Someone posted a complaint? I must of missed it. Not knowing the correct name or spelling I used Google then copied and pasted it.

Falcon

Re:Anbody want to

[riverat1]

I've never considered how the town halls are paid for but I just sent a message to him asking so I may have an answer for you next week. I don't imagine they are very expensive to run. In most counties they're probably held in the gym of a local school or some other low cost venue. There is no admission charged for them and anyone is welcome to attend up the the carrying capacity of the venue. They are not political events in the sense that he is campaigning for reelection at them. He is there to listen and respond to his constituents concerns. Of course the perception that he is willing to listen to them doesn't hurt his reelection chances.

I don't have a problem with individuals spending their own money on their own campaign although if I think they're trying to buy the election by massively outspending their opponent they're less likely to get my vote.

Corporations, unions and other associations should be required to fully disclose any money they spend on political speech so their stockholders/members are aware of where their money is going. The Senate R's filibustered a bill that would have required that a month or two ago.
 

Re:Anbody want to

[falconwolf]

Corporations, unions and other associations should be required to fully disclose any money they spend on political speech so their stockholders/members are aware of where their money is going

As I said before I don't believe corporations or unions would donate or spend a dime on political speech, except when it directly affects them. As a stockholder I wouldn't want the corporation I own stocks in to support someone I oppose. The same with my trade union. There should be no "the AFL-CIO supported this candidate"

The Senate R's filibustered a bill that would have required that a month or two ago.

The bill was an attempt to get around the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. If corporations had to tell stockholders who they donated to the stockholders may not like it. Personally as you should be able to guess I believe the USSC ruled wrong, however as they did rule that way it's likely they would rule a law requiring full disclosure was unconstitutional too.

Falcon

Re:Anbody want to

[riverat1]

This past election cycle over $400 million was spent on independent expenditures. The US Chamber of Commerce by itself spent something like $34 million. All corporate donations, some of it may have been foreign donations. As of Wednesday, October 27 conservative non-party organizations had spent some $176.5 million vs. liberal non-party organizations including unions spending some $81.6 million. One thing about unions, I believe they are required by law to allow their members to opt-out of contributing to the unions political activities.

Last January Anthony Kennedy, the author of the Citizens United opinion wrote:

“With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

It sounds to me like he naively believed that there would be automatic disclosure. I think given that there is a good chance a full disclosure law would be found constitutional.

Re:Anbody want to

[thefolkmetal]

I can't think of any way that campaign contribution != bribe.

You then need to learn the definition of "bribe". That definition is "to give money or presents to someone so that they will help you by doing something dishonest or illegal".

Falcon

How does this NOT have our government written all over it? By your very definition you seem to give weight to his argument.

Re:Anbody want to

[zeroshade]

government officials can't do something illegal because they make the laws which define what is legal.

Oh really? So all that money congress spend investigating Rep Charles Rangel was wasted money? And Alaska Sen Ted Stevens was not convicted in 2008 for corruption in a court room not by an ethics board?

Falcon

Helps to read the whole post.

unless they are so inept that they actually commit a felony that the rest of the members of their chamber or legislative body thinks is blatantly wrong.

I think that covers it.

Call my cynical.

[Dyinobal]

I don't trust any politician. So maybe he stopped this one bill but that doesn't mean he's not in support of some other kind of crazy.

Re:Call my cynical.

[Snarfangel]

The trick is to vote in opposing crazies.

Re:Call my cynical.

[hedwards]

So you support the reform party?

Re:Call my cynical.

[ultranova]

I don't trust any politician. So maybe he stopped this one bill but that doesn't mean he's not in support of some other kind of crazy.

True, it doesn't. However, it does mean that he is in opposition to at least a single kind of crazy, which is more than you can say about most congrescritters. So vote for him; a single good quality is better than none, right?

Re:Call my cynical.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad we can't vote "NO," and just have the office stay empty for a term. A timeout for both parties, if you will.

The Other Half of the Problem

[causality]

This commendable Senator took care of the first half of the problem. The second half of the problem is more institutional in nature. It grants one hell of an advantage to those who view various forms of freedom as an inconvenient hinderence to their goals.

All oppressive laws have this in common: those who push for them view a defeat like this as merely a delay or minor setback. They can keep trying to get them passed, over and over, through defeat after defeat, until finally they find a Congress more willing to be swayed by their arguments. They understand that once they get the law passed, it will stay on the books forever and will never be repealed. Agencies, bureaucracies and contractors will form around it and give it even more inertia. After a generation or two people will grow up knowing no other status quo.

What's a good, simple, robust solution to that?

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[bluerabbit4210]

Burning it all to the ground?

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

What's a good, simple, robust solution to that?

Revolution.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[SilverHatHacker]

Nuke it from orbit?

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"After a generation or two people will grow up knowing no other status quo." - Exactly. I have seen that happen in my own lifetime, on multiple fronts, and I am only 52.

Sooner or later, we end up where Mr. Orwell predicted. It's only a matter of when.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[laughingcoyote]

Some sort of national initiative/referendum process, perhaps? Many states have it, and while imperfect in its own ways, it does tend to keep in check the worst abuses. Of course, sometimes people pass spectacularly popular but spectacularly stupid laws, too.

But the main thing to that is to get corporate cash the hell out of politics. Amend the Constitution to specify that corporations are not "persons" with the same rights as real people, including the right to participation in the political process. Then stop allowing candidates for office to take brib-erm, excuse me, "campaign contributions". Each viable candidate gets to speak using the same platform in the same manner. One person one vote, not one dollar one vote.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[countertrolling]

It's been done before... No reason to believe it would be any different this time.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[Reziac]

Solution? A requirement that all laws have a sunset provision, to include all agencies and regulations promulgated by said law.

Of course, some Congressional genius would then pass a law that would sunset the sunset law.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

What's a good, simple, robust solution to that?

Repeated capaigns of political assasination?? Until finally the ones left are willing to be swayed by the arguments of their constituents rather than their corporate overlords. This guy from Oregon would obviously get a pass...

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[demonlapin]

There's only one problem with this approach: the media companies. You see, they get to talk right up until the end. They get to say whatever they want. And if they don't like you, you're toast. (To take some older examples, think of Dukakis or Quayle.)

So now you're telling people that they can't say what they want, with their own money, unless they happen to own a newspaper, or a TV or radio station. Do you really think that will bring us a better political class?

If you want the money out of politics, you have to take the politics out of money. Quite a few libertarians have been advocating this for a long time. Otherwise, the money will always be there, and all you're doing is ignoring the First Amendment in order to try to score political points.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[DarkOx]

Well me and a number of other people would like a Constitutional Amendment requiring all future laws in the US code to have a sunset date. Congress would have to than re debate every law periodically to determine if it should be renewed. There are varying opinions about how far out the maximum sunset can be. I personally think 30 years makes sense, that is four senate terms plus one to cover the other thirds not up for election at the end of term 1. This way most of the original people who debate the law will be gone from the senate, and folks with a fresh perspective would be able to consider it on its merits. Also having to take an issue up once every thirty years should not be two burdensome. The vast majority of expiring codes probably won't be controversial at all and could get taken care of with a quick up or down direct to floor vote in the first days of each congressional session.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[laughingcoyote]

I'm not sure how prohibiting bribery is a violation of "free speech". I can't legally bribe a cop, a judge, a building inspector, hell, the dogcatcher. I can't do that in cash, and I can't do it "in kind"-paying for things on their behalf or that benefit them even if I never directly give them the cash.

If it's not a violation of free speech to say you can't directly or indirectly bribe those officials, it's not a violation to say you can't directly or indirectly bribe others. I can still speak on their behalf until I'm blue in the face-I just can't buy them a Super Bowl commercial. Nor can I use my newspaper or TV company to stump for them, any more than a newspaper could give free classifieds for a year to the local fire marshal in exchange for, or hopes of, "forgetting" the fire inspection. That's not free speech. It's bribery.

As to corporations, they're artificial entities, not people. Each individual who works for a corporation retains full speech rights, but the corporation itself should have no such.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason I'm reminded of that Ron Paul interview where the interviewer laughs at Paul and says, "But you won't win!" Of course, everyone knew he wouldn't win, but hearing that come from a news employee was just downright sick.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Until finally the ones left are willing to be swayed by the arguments of their constituents rather than their corporate overlords.

Until the big and powerful start assassinating your ideal candidates. Kinda like JF- nvm.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"No reason to believe it would be any different this time." The current weapons, surveilance, and other tech available to limit or stop a revolution now would make it a lot more costly in terms of both effort and blood.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[PPH]

So now you're telling people that they can't say what they want, with their own money, unless they happen to own a newspaper, or a TV or radio station. Do you really think that will bring us a better political class?

What are these things called newspapers, radio and TV stations of which you speak?

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[the gnat]

Nor can I use my newspaper or TV company to stump for them, any more than a newspaper could give free classifieds for a year to the local fire marshal in exchange for, or hopes of, "forgetting" the fire inspection. That's not free speech. It's bribery.

Bullshit. "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." It doesn't get any clearer than this. You can say nearly anything you want in this country, short of directly inciting violence. If you're unhappy with this, move to Saudi Arabia or Iran or China, and enjoy the enlightened political environment that comes with a properly regulated media.

Concerning the distinction between corporations and people, it's irrelevant in this case. If I write a blog about politics, and I think that putting hypothetical Candidate X in the White House would directly lead to the destruction of Western Civilization, should this be allowed? What if I'm the publisher of a major newspaper, shouldn't I be allowed to say the same thing on my paper's editorial page? If the shareholders of the newspaper collectively decide this, why should they be prohibited from saying so? At what point does a group of citizens become large enough (or rich enough) that they collectively lose their 1st Amendment rights?

If there is an actual quid-pro-quo involved, then certainly, send the fuckers to jail. But this is almost never the case, even for news organizations that are blatantly biased towards a particular candidate. Proving it, anyway, is nearly impossible. Where do you draw the line between self-interest (which is entirely legitimate - if often unpleasant - in a pluralistic, democratic society) and acting in the public good? Would newspapers that loudly supported abolitionist candidates in the 1850s be muzzled by your hypothetical "anti-bribery" laws? Do you really think that federal regulators should waste time trying to parse out the personal motivations of everyone involved?

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Solution? A requirement that all laws have a sunset provision, to include all agencies and regulations promulgated by said law.

Of course, some Congressional genius would then pass a law that would sunset the sunset law.

You mean like we have in Texas?

Texas Sunset Commission

Every agency in Texas has an automatic sunset date *unless* acted upon by the Legislature. Limited government is a beautiful thing.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[falconwolf]

If it's not a violation of free speech to say you can't directly or indirectly bribe those officials

No but it is a violation to stop a person from exercising their speech, and that includes paying for it. On the other hand corporations shouldn't have the same rights and shouldn't be allowed to donate to any political campaigns. Neither should unions or trade groups.

Falcon

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[Reziac]

An AC responds regarding sunsetting of laws,
======
You mean like we have in Texas?
Texas Sunset Commission
Every agency in Texas has an automatic sunset date *unless* acted upon by the Legislature. Limited government is a beautiful thing.
=======
At least Texas sometimes remembers its independent roots. I'm afraid most of the country has forgotten them. :(

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[shutdown -p now]

There are varying opinions about how far out the maximum sunset can be.

Make it dependent on the number of votes in favor of the law. If you have something that barely passed, odds are good that it is not such a bright idea, and therefore should be abandoned or upheld after a shorter period of testing. On the other hand, when you get a near-unanimous vote in favor, it is unlikely to change anytime soon so make the term longer.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[demonlapin]

Still doesn't solve the problem of the media corporations being this special (and not particularly more trustworthy) category of corporation that, unlike every other corporation out there, gets to say what it wants.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[demonlapin]

Stuff that, unlike websites, has a long history of case law supporting it.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[demonlapin]

Nor can I use my newspaper or TV company to stump for them

What, you can't use your reporters to dig up dirt on their opposition? Or write a series of editorials in favor of their positions on a few critical issues? Or maybe do a puff piece on the hard-working US Attorney that's running for the House, and how he's a rising star in his party who's also taken down some pretty bad guys?

Just look at the last US presidential election and think about the candidates' coverage. The television networks, Fox excepted, were just insanely pro-Obama, and not just because he was a Democrat - Hillary's press wasn't any better than McCain's. A guy who can't deliver an extemporaneous speech got a reputation as a good orator. Why? Because media people liked him, and they are able to choose how to portray people.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[yuhong]

Personally, I'd just declare that money is not speech, period! Giving money to anybody should not be considered the same as speaking.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Interesting in theory, but in practice every vote would then be unanimous. There's horse trading now, just to get laws passed--but once you have your majority, you no longer need to trade for the remaining votes. In the case where all of the votes that were cast would have an impact, every vote would be traded.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[shutdown -p now]

That would mean it would make it more expensive to buy laws, no?

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[riverat1]

No but it is a violation to stop a person from exercising their speech, and that includes paying for it.

The problem I have with that is then George Soros or the Kock brothers have the ability to drown out my free speech with their wealth. As I mentioned above money is merely a means amplifying speech and I have no problem controlling the gain on that amplifier.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[Dracophile]

So you'd just sunset that law, then, right?

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[Reziac]

I wouldn't, but you can bet that in a state where growing and perpetuating the State is the most "important" thing the legislature does (I'm lookin' at YOU, California!) some 'clever' legislation would do exactly that -- sunset the sunset law, so they could do an end run around it.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[falconwolf]

Still doesn't solve the problem of the media corporations being this special (and not particularly more trustworthy) category of corporation that, unlike every other corporation out there, gets to say what it wants.

Ah but there is a way to deal with mass media and large media corporations. Free the airwaves. As I've posted before the airwaves were homesteaded before the FCC, and its predecessor the Federal Radio Commission was created. Abolish the FCC, or at least airwave licensing, and the media corporation lose power.

To head off criticism that large broadcaster will drown out smaller broadcasters with higher powered transmitters, US courts had been ruling that the person who homesteaded a radio frequency in a given location "owned" that frequency there and others could not interfere with the owner broadcasting on said frequency.

Falcon

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[falconwolf]

Personally, I'd just declare that money is not speech, period! Giving money to anybody should not be considered the same as speaking.

Oh, so Radio stations, TV stations, and websites as well as billboard companies allow free political ads? HAHA!!! That that does is make large media corporations more powerful, not less.

What good is speech without the ability to get a large audience, which takes money?

Falcon

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[demonlapin]

How in the world does this solve the problem of media corporations having the ability - unlike every other corporation under your regime - to run politically slanted content under the guise of news right up until the end of the election? The Web and print are already this open, but most people get their news from big media corps' sites. Why? Better production quality. (Not necessarily the content, just the presentation.)

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[falconwolf]

The problem I have with that is then George Soros or the Kock brothers have the ability to drown out my free speech with their wealth.

So it's alright if their voices are drowned out by law? No it isn't, that was the entire basis of the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech, that anyone can exercise their political speech. If I have the money to buy or build my own radio or TV station I should be able to do whatever I want with it, including broadcasting political speech, so long as I do not stop other from doing the same thing.

Falcon

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[falconwolf]

How in the world does this solve the problem of media corporations having the ability - unlike every other corporation under your regime - to run politically slanted content under the guise of news right up until the end of the election?

It does solve that, what opening the airwaves does is it allows more voices to be broadcast. Just as the web allows relatively cheap and easy websites, open airwaves will allow relatively cheap and easy radio stations. An example I used years ago was a station dedicated to model railroads where I start broadcasting a call-in show. Maybe I do it as a hobby an hour or two a week, or maybe I try to make it a career and business getting hobby shops to sponsor the show.

Of course doing that now, broadcasting pirate radio, is an invitation to have armed government employees bust down my door.

The Web and print are already this open, but most people get their news from big media corps' sites.

And how many are there? ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, PBS, and others. Then there's Alternet, Indymedia, and wikipedia.

Why? Better production quality. (Not necessarily the content, just the presentation.)

What? Only large organizations can put together quality presentations?

Falcon

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[scot4875]

No, they're not drowned out by law. They just have no more voice than anyone else. Their individual voices get drowned out by the millions of other voices, rather than the millions of voices being drowned out by their billions of dollars.

Is this so difficult to understand?

--Jeremy

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[falconwolf]

No, they're not drowned out by law.

If a law says how much a person can spend on a campaign their rights are being violated. How difficult is that to understand?

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
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.

Abridge: verb
to produce a shorter form of a book, play etc by making cuts in the original

Limiting speech is abridging that speech.

Falcon

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[riverat1]

Jeremy has it right.

You still equate money with free speech. Where is the 1st Amendment does it mention money? Soros and the Koch brothers should each have as much free speech as I have, no more, no less. If they spend money to drown me out then they are abridging my right to free speech. If they spend money to get more of my representatives attention than I can get then they are abridging my rights.

As I said before, money is not free speech but merely an amplifier of speech.

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[falconwolf]

Since you can't understand, or refuse to do so perhaps because you're trolling, this is my last reply.

Falcon

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition to automatic sunset laws, I have a second part that would add to the proposal:

Any bill proposed must be read aloud in session, in its entirety, by the bill's sponsor(s), before it may be voted on.

Laws would be shorter, and no congressman could ever say "I didn't know that was in the bill."

Re:The Other Half of the Problem

[riverat1]

I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with it. Perhaps you value money more than I do. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I recall some past posts of yours that I heartily agree with so I'm not just a contrarian.

BTW, I don't think of myself as a troll. I'm just giving my honest opinion. But sometimes I get persistent about replying if you consider that trolling.

Slashdot nigga!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like a nigga, who's in the hole,
It's like a nigga, he's on the dole!

It's like a nigga, he's made of plastic,
It's like a nigga, he's niggatastic!

Might be more likely to pass with next congress

[countertrolling]

Neat trick

Re:Might be more likely to pass with next congress

[Anonymous Coward]

You have congressman and senators. WRITE THEM. Dont sit on here and bitch about it.

Write them asking how is it possible for someone to swipe the equivalent of 90 bucks worth of songs and end up with million dollar judgments. Ask where is the justice in that? Be polite and loud about it. If they say the do not care. They have written the oppositions campaign for them. They are there to represent YOU and those around you. Do not let some slimy businessman bully you around.

Trust me *THIS* is the time to do it. They have gotten the message loud and clear we are tired of their shit. No seat is 'safe'. We are tired of this 'block' voting. They need to use the freeking thing holding their ears apart. If you do not tell them you do not like it who else do they have listen to? Thats right the lobbyist.

Re:Might be more likely to pass with next congress

[countertrolling]

How 'bout if I write them, vote against them, encourage my neighbors to do the same hoping the idea might "infect" the whole country, AND sit on here and bitch about it to spread it even further?

Would that be acceptable?

No seat is 'safe'.

Not absolutely, no, but 93% odds aren't too shabby either. If I saw it down to 70%, I might agree there's a movement afoot. And it's entirely possible that the politician will respond accordingly.

Re:Might be more likely to pass with next congress

[fyngyrz]

You have congressman and senators. WRITE THEM.

...and said congress-critter will never see the letter. An "aide" (really some know-nothing) will open it, determine it doesn't contain money or plausibly promise money, and it'll go right into the round-file, and, if you're really lucky, you'll get a generic form letter back thanking you for your "input." With a nice reproduction of your congress-critter's signature, possibly suitable for framing -- if no one looks too closely.

Short version: Writing in doesn't work. If you want to have an effect, you need to be able to wave around money, or huge blocks of voters. Individuals are powerless, and this is by design.

Re:Might be more likely to pass with next congress

[lgw]

Individuals are powerless, and this is by design.

Well, yeah, that's how democracy works. A system in which individuals are powerful is called a monarchy, or a dictatorship. Alwyas seems to be the wrong individuals, somehow. By design, you should have to wave around huge blocks of voters to have an effect within a democracy (even a representative democracy like our own).

Re:Might be more likely to pass with next congress

[SacredByte]

Except we don't have a 'representative democracy'; We have a Constitutional Republic.

Re:Might be more likely to pass with next congress

[lgw]

... which is a kind of representative democracy. Obsessive pedantry is childish.

Re:Might be more likely to pass with next congress

[SacredByte]

It may be a case of potato/potatoe, but while one is correct, the other will get you relentlessly mocked by the press.

WTF? The Story Link is to an Open Source Blog?

[RobotRunAmok]

Dude, I appreciate that you may want the pageviews, but consider linking to the source next time. It's how it's done in the Big Leagues.

Re:WTF? The Story Link is to an Open Source Blog?

[Chaosrains]

Agreed - this needs updated to link to the source, as well as fix the glaring grammar problems...

Huh

[MyLongNickName]

His objection effectively stop its current passing forcing it to be introduced again if the bill is continue.

English, please?

Re:Huh

[theaceoffire]

Instead of rubber stamping it, it has to be brought up again (With far more people paying attention, making it more likely that protests will have effect).

Re:Huh

[$RANDOMLUSER]

His objection effectively stop its current passing forcing it to be introduced again if the bill is continue.

English, please?

His objection effectively stop it's current passing forcing it to be introduced again if the bill is continue.

Re:Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

English it may not.

Re:Huh

[fyngyrz]

Nope:

His objection effectively stops its current passing, forcing it to be introduced again if the bill is to continue.

Re:Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

So we should be saying "stop it is current passing" in proper English?

Re:Huh

[MyLongNickName]

And beyond the mechanical grammar errors is the stylistic one. The sentence should be divided into two or restructured to make it more clear.

Re:Huh

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Well done; now can you use the word "whoosh" in a sentence?

Re:Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what your text translates to:

His objection effectively stop it is current passing forcing it to be introduced again if the bill is continue.

I think what we all mean it to say is:

His objection effectively stops its current passing, forcing it to be introduced again if the bill is to continue.

Re:Huh

[riverat1]

The 111th Congress is over at the end of this year and the 112th Congress convenes on January 3rd, 2011. Bills that are not passed in a Congress are not carried over to the next one and so have to be reintroduced if they are to go forward.

Re:Huh

[fyngyrz]

Mea culpa; I am, indeed, a humorless twerp, condemned by my actions here for many slashdot database backups to come.

In my defense, the odds of encountering someone on slashdot who can properly use American English, and has a sense of humor, and would use it to further abuse a tortured phrase as you did... it wasn't so much a "whoosh", as an event most reminiscent of the idea that the lottery is a tax for the math-impaired. If you'll forgive me, I'll get on with abusing actual syntax cripples now.

A great measure of thanks to my Senator!

[Anonymous Coward]

Senator Wyden gets re-elected because he is one of the few who 'get it' in general. Being from the Portland area he is very in tune with the needs and desires of the tech community. Beyond that he is an honorable and decent man... which I cannot say about most politicians. Waking up to this post only validates my vote for him.

Thank you from all of us Senator Wyden... keep up the good work!

What deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy is a hero for doing the right thing, but where is the punishment for the people who tried to put this through; there is no deterrent!?

I would like to sponsor a new bill: each time you sponsor a bill and it gets denied you get caned Singapore style by a martial arts master. Frankly this is getting off easy as they should be tried for treason. However, I believe the caning would cut down on significant paperwork. I'll start by taking a caning if this bill fails (unfortunately I know it will). Ahh screw it, I don't want to be caned.

Re:What deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's the tard who modded this Insightful?

You'd actually punish someone for introducing a *good* bill that was later defeated?

Someone is not thinking things through.

second that.

[unity100]

it took a revolution in 1774, and then another in 1789, and then a few more others in 1848s to establish the fundamentals of the modern liberties and freedoms, and all human rights we take granted now. apparently, we need a few more in order to get one step further.

Re:second that.

[Cruciform]

And all of those cool military gadgets we ooh and ahh over will be deployed against citizens aspiring for freedom.

Re:second that.

[allusionist]

Are you implying that wasn't the case in all previous revolutions? Aspiring revolutionaries also have better technologies available now than before, so the playing field isn't any more imbalanced than ever before. Just expect more casualties on both sides if such a thing was ever to happen....but with higher populations now, even that is a wash in a sense.

Re:second that.

[Anonymous Coward]

And all of those cool military gadgets we ooh and ahh over will be deployed against citizens aspiring for freedom.

That's why the 2nd amendment says "arms", not "hand guns".

All the military hardware in the world is useless against a determined, well-armed insurgency (see Iraq, or America 1776).
Plus, you'd have the lost morale for the troops which would have to go marching through the streets of their home towns, civil wars and revolutions are nasty business which most fighting forces are unprepared for.

Re:second that.

[fyngyrz]

And all of those cool military gadgets we ooh and ahh over will be deployed against citizens aspiring for freedom.

Hasn't worked in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, and it won't work here, either. Furthermore, in those countries, they weren't destroying their own lines of supply and alienating their own countrymen. I don't think the military would be all that willing to act decisively against the US population.

I also don't think violent revolution is a good answer. Just that if it happened, the military isn't the problem one might think just because it has awesome weaponry, which of course it does.

Personally, just sort of counting heads, I don't think there are enough people in this country that have more than the vaguest understanding of how it was supposed to work or how it does work, to foment and execute a revolution, so I really don't worry about it. In this case, the Gaussian and our terrible educational system look to me to insulate us completely from such a thing. And I don't mind. Things could be a lot worse.

Re:second that.

[interkin3tic]

And all of those cool military gadgets we ooh and ahh over will be deployed against citizens aspiring for freedom.

Revolution does not necessarily mean "violent uprising." Which is good, because it seems to me that the people most likely to take arms up against their government right now would be MORE in favor of censorship and less personal rights.

Hell, the RIAA and MPAA might decide to sponsor the armed revolution through Fox news.

Re:second that.

[ultranova]

And all of those cool military gadgets we ooh and ahh over will be deployed against citizens aspiring for freedom.

Whereas the citizens aspiring for freedom will utilize the guillotine.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will simply use various forms of encryption and steganoragphy and escape your notion. We already are, as it happens.

Basically, fuck you. Fuck your master. Fuck anyone who claims control over anything for any reason. I'm already a part of the global community, and will only care about my own country (Finland) if it continues to prove worth it. Or maybe I'll do the really radical thing and demand it'll stay worth it...

Re:second that.

[Ironchew]

And all of those cool military gadgets we ooh and ahh over will be deployed against citizens aspiring for freedom.

Hasn't worked in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, and it won't work here, either.

If I recall correctly, none of those countries have strategic weapons (read: nuclear). If the entire country revolts against the government, the military will be deployed. This will cause many soldiers to defect, as others have discussed, but the higher-ups will use nuclear weapons against us and they will win, no matter the cost. Violent revolution is not an option.

Re:second that.

[MechaStreisand]

You consider the use of nuclear weapons against your own country WINNING?

Re:second that.

[fyngyrz]

[in the case of civil revolution] ...the higher-ups will use nuclear weapons against us and they will win, no matter the cost.

That's truly absurd, even paranoid. You're silly.

Re:second that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Glenn Beck will lead his company to victory.

Re:second that.

[dbIII]

Company! Form lines! Roll banknotes! Inhale!
We should have listened to those antidrug ads. Glenn Beck IS your brain on drugs and one of the best arguments against cocaine use that I've seen.

yay common sense!

[nurb432]

Give this guy a cookie, and re-elect him please.

Re:yay common sense!

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in OR, and I wrote to him, saying that exact thing: "Thank you for having common sense!"

bleh...

[Anonymous Coward]

now you can go back to stealing your music & movies kids, it's your right! If you want you can pay for it by going to russian sites and the like that charge, but don't pay the content creators! Thank god this bill was defeated so people can keep paying others for stealing content for them!

Re:bleh...

[fyngyrz]

The power to punish for copyright violation is appropriate. Broad censorship powers, however, are not. This bill deserves to fall by the wayside, it is both poorly crafted in pursuit of its stated goal, and constitutionally unauthorized.

In other news...

[pedantic bore]

... it might be nice if the government had the ability to copy-edit the Internet, or at least slashdot story summaries...

Slashdot need new Editor

[Covalent]

Do the editor stop check for subject verb agreement? Me am curious.

Re:Slashdot need new Editor

[Anonymous Coward]

Jar-jar also job needs. Here, perhaps, less damage he may do. Or on screen, prefer him you might, yes?

I commend you sir!

[digitalPhant0m]

I usually sway to the Red, however I must say that this Senator has earned my respect by standing up for what do you call it? You know, that thing this country was supposedly built upon and champions, oh yeah Freedom!

Thank you!

Re:I commend you sir!

[Anonymous Coward]

I usually sway to the Red

Which in this particular case is a good slant to have.

The bill was put forth by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) with 17 co-sponsors: 6(R) and 11(D).

Lindsey Graham [R-SC]
Charles Grassley [R-IA]
Orrin Hatch [R-UT]
Lamar Alexander [R-TN]
Thomas Coburn [R-OK]
George Voinovich [R-OH]

Evan Bayh [D-IN]
Benjamin Cardin [D-MD]
Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]
Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Herbert Kohl [D-WI]
Robert Menéndez [D-NJ]
Charles Schumer [D-NY]
Arlen Specter [D-PA]
Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]

Oh look, Hatch and Specter....anyone surprised?

Re:I commend you sir!

[skam240]

Really this is something that Americans from all over the political spectrum should be happy about (I personally sway to the blue).

Sadly, most of the public either doesn't care or is completely ignorant of the issue.

One possible solution

[MikeRT]

Pass a constitutional amendment that strips Congress of civil immunity for their unconstitutional laws. Let them get sued for lost wages, profits, trebble damages and emotional distress and suddenly we'll have 535 originalist legal scholars.

Re:One possible solution

[painandgreed]

Pass a constitutional amendment that strips Congress of civil immunity for their unconstitutional laws.

Trouble is that there is no real way to have a judicial review of laws to see if they are constitutional before making them laws. It would be a crapshoot especially if new laws are in untested legal waters to begin with (which would be one of the reason there would need to be new laws). Add to that that judicial opinions change, there really is no way of determining if a law is constitutional until it is made a law and then tested in court.

Re:One possible solution

[Rakarra]

Pass a constitutional amendment that strips Congress of civil immunity for their unconstitutional laws. Let them get sued for lost wages, profits, trebble damages and emotional distress and suddenly we'll have 535 originalist legal scholars.

Sweet, so when Congress fails to pass laws outlawing and filtering any device or program that is used for piracy, the RIAA and MPAA sue them for piracy 'damages?' We'd be worse off than if we were back at square one.

Re:One possible solution

[magus_melchior]

That will never pass convention-- here's why:

I guarantee you that for most "unconstitutional laws" you sue a legislator under this amendment, there will be several legal rulings that support their constitutionality, and thus provide the legislator with an affirmative defense-- maybe not a good one, but now you not only have to account for the Congresscritter who wrote the bill, but also the President who signed it and the judiciary that didn't strike it down. Instead of 535 originalist legal scholars, you will have 535 legislators who are now so scared of being sued that they won't pass any laws at all-- and given that people in this country will sue over practically anything, you will have a very hard time convincing me or anyone familiar with the judiciary that this won't be the case.

Now if the intent is to bind Congress' constitutional role in a straightjacket and just destroy the entire US legal code aside from the constitution, you might want the amendment to say so explicitly rather than open the legislature up to lawsuits real and imagined-- the appropriate venue, until then, to striking down "unconstitutional laws" is the courts.

Originalism is a very important interpretation of the Constitution, but it is not the only one. To demand that it be the only possible means of interpreting the Constitution is ideological tyranny.

Re:One possible solution

[magus_melchior]

And another thing, who the hell are you going to sue if the original author is dead? The whole US Congress? That's a horrible idea on many precedent-breaking levels, and will have a far greater impact than Citizens United did.

Re:One possible solution

[causality]

Pass a constitutional amendment that strips Congress of civil immunity for their unconstitutional laws.

Trouble is that there is no real way to have a judicial review of laws to see if they are constitutional before making them laws. It would be a crapshoot especially if new laws are in untested legal waters to begin with (which would be one of the reason there would need to be new laws). Add to that that judicial opinions change, there really is no way of determining if a law is constitutional until it is made a law and then tested in court.

I don't know, man. To me, phrases like "Congress shall make no law" and "Shall not be infringed" are pretty damned unambiguous.

I suppose if I studied law and become a Constitutional scholar I could invent ways to make those ambiguous, but that's what it would take because the meaning and intent of the Constitution is really not difficult to understand.

As far as fixing the gigantic monster that is the federal government, that could be done with a court ruling. We need a ruling from the Supreme Court stating that any federal law concerning intrastate affairs is blatantly un-Constitutional and invalid. Couple that with a court ruling stating that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and therefore not Constitutionally authorized to control currency and we'd be back on the road to freedom.

Tell him Thank You yourself.

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe in positive reinforcement. So few politicians take the right stance on these technology, copyright and censorship issues, and when one does they should be told how much it is appreciated.

You can write a quick 2 line note to that effect on his website here:

http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/

The senators on the approving panel

[fyrie]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101118/10291211924/the-19-senators-who-voted-to-censor-the-internet.shtml

        * Patrick J. Leahy -- Vermont
        * Herb Kohl -- Wisconsin
        * Jeff Sessions -- Alabama
        * Dianne Feinstein -- California
        * Orrin G. Hatch -- Utah
        * Russ Feingold -- Wisconsin
        * Chuck Grassley -- Iowa
        * Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania
        * Jon Kyl -- Arizona
        * Chuck Schumer -- New York
        * Lindsey Graham -- South Carolina
        * Dick Durbin -- Illinois
        * John Cornyn -- Texas
        * Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland
        * Tom Coburn -- Oklahoma
        * Sheldon Whitehouse -- Rhode Island
        * Amy Klobuchar -- Minnesota
        * Al Franken -- Minnesota
        * Chris Coons -- Delaware

Re:The senators on the approving panel

[Dan667]

these Senators should be ashamed.

Re:The senators on the approving panel

[Greymoon]

Most thieves are not ashamed, it is one attribute that helps them be a better thief. All these people are trying to steal you culture. You regularly see these names closely associated with the MPAA and RIAA, two organizations dedicated to stealing your culture. Vote these self-centered, corrupt, treasonous, paid-for-politicians out.

Re:The senators on the approving panel

[Anonymous Coward]

these Senators should be assassinated.

FTFY

Re:The senators on the approving panel

[Anonymous Coward]

What a strange mix! Outside of this specific vote, what do these folks have in common?

Re:The senators on the approving panel

[Anonymous Coward]

These Senators should be executed for treason...

Re:The senators on the approving panel

[Anonymous Coward]

I voted for Feinstein on the basis of her voting against the war in Iraq and a lot of the BS Bush pulled through. Guess there's no such thing as a perfect politician.

Re:The senators on the approving panel

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Al Franken -- Minnesota

As probably the strongest congressional proponent of net neutrality (or at least the most acerbic) I am really disappointed to see his name on this list. Yeah, he was a actor/comedian working for the MAFIAA before, but he was able to overcome that bias and see the danger the MAFIAA poses to freedom of expression with their anti net-neutrality stance, so why did he cave on this one?

Re:The senators on the approving panel

[KermodeBear]

Patrick J. Leahy - Democrat
Herb Kohl - Democrat
Jeff Sessions - Republican
Dianne Feinstein - Democrat
Orrin G. Hatch - Republican
Russ Feingold - Democrat
Chuck Grassley - Republican

I didn't feel like going through the rest of them, but whatever they have in common, it isn't political party. Both of the big name parties are guilty here.

Re:The senators on the approving panel

[Purist]

Wow...it's not often you see Orrin Hatch and Al Franken agreeing on something...must be some good money at stake! P

Re:The senators on the approving panel

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not surprised to see the senator from Illinois on this one. Alongside New York and California, Illinois is one of the states that has veered the furthest from the ideals of freedom, self reliance and pursuit of happiness this country has been founded on and is one of the closes to be a full nanny state. "Be your own man" was replaced with the "I will whine for the government to give me all I need and when they run out of money I shall vote for those who will again increase the taxes on those fools who still work - and in return I will give up my freedom". Come to Illinois to see the failure of democracy and how it got corrupted into a system of political clientelage just like in ancient Rome.

Too close for comfort...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks. But does it really have to come down to one man? This is the same kind of one man action in the Senate that blocks legislation for decades.
Just one senator between us and government censorship of the internet? What do you thing a Palin administration or A Palin/Bush court would do.
Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

Re:The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oreg

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are looking for Band Name Handbag Shoes Jacket Jeans Boots, welcome to our online store http://www.365buyonline.com . I appreciate it!

Re:The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oreg

[allusionist]

I live in New York and plan on sending a letter of thanks to Sen. Wyden (even if I'm not convinced of his reasons for stopping this, it still desperately needed to be stopped) as well as letters to my own Senators. Will it do anything? No, of course not. Will it have an impact if many of us do? Probably not, but it's certainly worth a few minutes of each of our time to at least try.

The decline into an Orwellian state has been slowed down, at least a little.

actually

[unity100]

with the current collaboration and communication tools (internet, mobile) revolutions dont even need to be bloody anymore.

Re:actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the don't need to but that's the way they trend.

Re:actually

[unity100]

they only trend that way, if the ruling strata does not be stubborn in their stance, and try to assert their will over the populace. the history is filled with cases in which the ruling elite had backed down, and gave in to the population's demands and revolutions were averted.

Re:actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an interesting read from Malcolm Gladwell about why the Internet actually hinders revolutions.

Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted.

Re:actually

[unity100]

connections in between people that are 'acquaintances' in internet, or in general, around the net, may be weak. but, there are billions of connections.

if, each of them changes the way they behave and the things they do a little bit, it makes a whopping difference.

it was harder to organize passive resistance for gandhi. it required use of printed media and word of mouth. now, its spontaneous.

So confused

[bonch]

Slashdot was in favor of net neutrality, but it's against COICA? Both involve the government regulating internet traffic. The only thing I can see that makes Slashdotters against COICA is that it specifically targets piracy.

Re:So confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Rightly or wrongly, the difference that Slashdot perceives is that COICA enables the government to censor, whereas net neutrality enables the government to prevent censorship by others.

Re:So confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you eat poop? I already know you ate eggs for breakfast, and both involve eating.

Re:So confused

[N0Man74]

Slashdot was in favor of net neutrality, but it's against COICA? Both involve the government regulating internet traffic. The only thing I can see that makes Slashdotters against COICA is that it specifically targets piracy.

I can't speak for every Slashdotter, but...

Net Neutrality isn't about the government controlling the internet, it's about preventing corporations using leverage to control the internet and/or hold bandwidth hostage for competitive advantage or to inhibit the flow of free information.

As for being against policies that stop policies, it's not that I'm for piracy. It's just that legislation, policies, and industry practices to reduce piracy have been ineffective, will probably never be effective, hurt legitimate content consumers more than it hurts the pirates, and continuously erode what we can do under Fair Use. That's not to mention that they create ways for corporations to try to financially ruin individuals that are accused of infringing on a rather small scale, even if the evidence that they have done so is shaky. The people are abused, and even content providers of public domain works are often caught in the crossfire. And all of this is done in the name of stopping piracy (whose actual impact is really hard to know) of copyrighted (for way too damn long) works.

I think that these views are entirely consistent. We don't want corporations and governments meddling with our legitimate access to content and information.

Re:So confused

[ultranova]

Slashdot was in favor of net neutrality, but it's against COICA? Both involve the government regulating internet traffic. The only thing I can see that makes Slashdotters against COICA is that it specifically targets piracy.

When the government makes regulation that censors the Internet, that's bad. When the government makes regulation that keeps corporations from censoring the Internet, that's good. Censorship is evil, freedom is good. It's that simple.

A car analogy: If the government made a law that prevented you from driving to California, that would be very bad. If a toll road operator forced you to tell your destination and charged extra if it was California, and the government would bitchslap them for that, it would be very good.

Good is good, whether it's done by the government, corporations, or anyone, and evil is evil, whether it's done by the government, corporations, or anyone. This is an entirely consistent position.

Re:So confused

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I get what you are saying, but I'm still a little bit confused. Which one is the good guy? The government or the corporations?

Re:So confused

[PPH]

The good guy is always the one who supports a free and open Internet.

Re:So confused

[Anonymous Coward]

God DAMN it. Bonch is a very well known troll here on Slashdot. STOP feeding him!

Re:So confused

[Gerzel]

It isn't THAT the government regulates internet traffic it is HOW.

There are many laws that are bad, illformed and outright corrupt put forth in government but that doesn't mean that the idea of laws and government itself is bad or corrupt.

Re:So confused

[Teancum]

Maybe a troll, but it got a very well formed and articulate response. If that is feeding trolls, give me a steak dinner.

Re:So confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Pick one. I need to know who is the good guy and who is the bad guy!

Re:So confused

[Anonymous Coward]

I know who the stupid guy is - you.

Re:So confused

[jhigh]

Rightly or wrongly, the difference that Slashdot perceives is that COICA enables the government to censor, whereas net neutrality enables the government to prevent censorship by others.

Yet the most powerful argument against net neutrality is that it could (and likely would) result in government censorship. Net neutrality is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to put the Internet under the purview of the government, packaged such that it sells to geeks.

Re:So confused

[hairyfeet]

As someone under the new caps being "test marketed" and soon coming to you, let me tell what life without net neutrality is like and what it results in. You have a cap of 36GB residential and 76GB business. Vonage counts against the cap, the cableco VoIP doesn't. Result? I don't use Vonage. MSFT Windows Update doesn't count against the cap, Mac and Linux does. The result? I wouldn't buy a Mac and while I used to like trying new distros I don't mess with Linux anymore. Youtube and Netflix has "made a deal" so that their services don't count against the cap, while other video sites do. Result? It just got a lot harder for a competing video site to gain traction here.

Get the picture? Without some sort of common carrier rules you end up in a situation like I'm in, where the cableco can make THEIR offering attractive while everyone else looks bad because they will cost you extra. It also allows them to "herd you" towards the services they approve of, by punishing you (at $1.50 per GB if you go over) if you don't stick to approved services. It is the walled garden all over again, only thanks to the fact many of us live with either no choice or a duopoly that refuses to compete with one another (my only choice is DSL where they made it clear they have NO intention of upgrading the 40+ year old lines here, which means 200KB max speed) so without some sort of basic rules you have tilted the game even farther against competition.

Re:So confused

[shutdown -p now]

Both involve the government regulating internet traffic.

Unlike some people, we don't see government regulation as good or evil in and of itself. What matters is how it is used.

Similarly, government controlling the economy by instituting monopolies for the sake of profit is bad; government controlling the economy by breaking up abusive monopolies and preventing new ones from being formed is good.

Re:So confused

[srmalloy]

Slashdot was in favor of net neutrality, but it's against COICA? Both involve the government regulating internet traffic. The only thing I can see that makes Slashdotters against COICA is that it specifically targets piracy.

When the government makes regulation that censors the Internet, that's bad. When the government makes regulation that keeps corporations from censoring the Internet, that's good. Censorship is evil, freedom is good. It's that simple.

A car analogy: If the government made a law that prevented you from driving to California, that would be very bad. If a toll road operator forced you to tell your destination and charged extra if it was California, and the government would bitchslap them for that, it would be very good.

Good is good, whether it's done by the government, corporations, or anyone, and evil is evil, whether it's done by the government, corporations, or anyone. This is an entirely consistent position.

Your analogy for COICA isn't really on all fours; it's more as if the government were able to say "There have been reports that your car was seen to be speeding; no one has presented any proof of this, but just to make sure you aren't going to violate the speed limit, we're confiscating your car."

Re:So confused

[dingram17]

Oh noes the dredded capz!

People in most of the world haven't had 'unlimited' internet because US carriers have always charged for external connections. We pay to access US websites and we pay to have US customers access our websites.

36GB is a heck of a lot of data. People in Australia were getting by with 5-10GB per month, and only recently have 50-100GB plans become available. I have 130GB, with 60GB to be used between 0800 and 0100, and 50GB to be used between 0100 and 0800. People watch ABC iView (unmetered on some, but not all), use VoIP services and play with Linux. Not having Netflix and Hulu probably keeps data down, but we still catch up on missed TV episodes using video on demand from the TV station (Ten are very good for this).

If you are going to choose your OS on the basis of your internet connection then you well and truly have your cranium implanted in your rectum. Cut out the bit torrent and streaming video and then try to justify legal consumption of more than 5GB of traffic a month ...

Re:So confused

[Schadrach]

Really, net neutrality is about preventing corporations from using their leverage to prevent you from making using their competitors. For example, say degrading Vonage traffic to the point it's unusable so you'll use you cable company's VOIP instead, or making Google unreachable because Microsoft is paying your ISP to give them a good connection and Google isn't. Or even better for this crowd, causing all connections to download the ISOs of the dozen or so largest linux distros to simply drop out 2/3 to 3/4 of the way through the file because Microsoft is paying them to not let you download Linux (and letting you get most of the file means you use more bandwidth towards your cap).

In many areas, you don't have a real choice as far as a broadband internet connection.

I've always thought that there's a simple solution to net neutrality that doesn't involve too much possibility of government interference -- give each ISP a choice.

You can choose to be a common carrier and have the same protections that the phone company does regarding content -- being content agnostic (aside from basic QoS) makes you immune to concerns over what that content is.

If you choose not to be a common carrier you get to do all the "evil" types of filtering that people use as examples of why we need net neutrality, however since you are filtering in a content/destination-sensitive way, you are also assuming legal responsibility for all content going across the line, and are a distributor of such. As in that makes you a target for all the **AA lawsuits and distribution of child pornography investigations, as because you are filtering for content, you are aware of content and thus responsible for content.

Any sane ISP would of course choose the common carrier option, but then that's rather the point, isn't it?.

Re:So confused

[kevinmenzel]

OK - I'm in a band. We record our parts for our current album at our individual homes, and share them with each other, at full quality (24bit, 88.2KHz is what we are recording at) - and my drum set is oh, lets see, in some tracks upwards of 15 tracks at that sample/bit rate. Hey look! Lots of legal bandwidth usage!

Re:So confused

[dingram17]

Cool use for the internet -- wasn't aware of that use.

Is it common for people to do this where you are? It still is only 0.252Mbyte/sec, so to go through 5GB would require 5.6 hours of tracks.

By 15 tracks, do you mean there are 15 drum tracks on each song, or that there are 15 songs on the album? How many hours of playing would you get from your other band members in a month?

Re:So confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Very well-said. I applaud you, sir.

Re:So confused

[hokeyru]

And that is exactly the crux of the issue. The internet wasn't designed for any particular purpose. It was designed for any purpose anyone could dream up. It is ridiculous for anyone to think they had enumerated all the uses of the internet, or believe anyone ought to 'justify' their consumption.

Re:So confused

[kdemetter]

That's indeed a problem : regulation or no regulation .

The idea of net neutrality on it's own is good , but it is a form of regulation by the government . There's always a danger that it can be used/altered to feature a certain agenda.

The only thing needed in this case is avoid monopolies on the ISP market . That way , competition can play a role in the decisions made by the ISP's . If my ISP then introduces a tiered internet , i can simply go with a provider that doesn't .

Re:So confused

[Rakarra]

Slashdot is staffed by, and read by many people who want to be free to make their own decisions. They don't want either the government or some large corporate trust removing those possibilities.

Re:So confused

[dingram17]

But is it reasonable to expect that someone using the internet to mix music and going through 5-20GB per month should pay the same for access as someone that is lucky to use 1GB per month?

I think this is called 'tiered access' in the US. While bits themselves are free, more use results in more congestion and providers need to build out more network to cope. I think this is why I get a chunk of data to use at night when there is less demand (just like off-peak power pricing).

If use more electricity or water then I pay for it. Why not the same for the internet? At least the internet is flexible and slows down rather than just stopping (as an overloaded power grid does).

A dirty cheap ISP that has too much congestion and squeezes too many people onto its uplink will loose some customers, but not all. People that are reading email and news online might not notice, but gamers and online video viewers will, and are likely to go elsewhere. Of course this depends on competition which from the sound of it is sorely laking with US ISPs. Here in Australia the copper network is mostly owned by Telstra who lease the ADSL spectrum to ISPs to communicate with the ISPs' equipment at the exchange. The ISPs are then responsible for getting data to the internet. This means that two neighbours can be sharing the same multicore cable back to the exchange, but have dramatically different performance. The same applies with resellers of 3G/UMTS internet. It is common spectrum to the carrier's switch and then the ISPs' responsibility to get it to the internet. I think the UK and NZ (and probably the rest of the world except the US) operates similarly.

Re:So confused

[Klinky]

We're in a situation where 1GB of data costs more than 1kW of energy, in some cases it can be drastically more. If grandma is paying $55/mn for internet and only uses 2GB that's about $22.50 per GB which is pretty outrageous. She uses less, she still pays the same. Even someone maxing out their 250GB Comcast cap is paying $0.22 per GB, which is still quite expensive.

Frankly all utilities need to be monitored and broken up when needed to ensure there are multiple competitors. Also there should be huge efforts towards preventing carriers from also producing content as well. For example Comcast owns Comcast Sports Net and has been trying to extort higher than average fees from other non-comcast providers to carry it. Also Comcast's merger with NBC should raise huge flags. They'll own the line, the TV service & the content on that service... How does that not sound like a monopoly?

Re:So confused

[dingram17]

Hopefully reduced caps would have reduced prices. Typical low-volume (2GB) internet costs are around $20 per month for ADSL2+ and $30 per month for 3G. 250GB would cost $70 for ADSL2+ (plus line rental), and 200GB is $100.

The comparison with energy isn't all that valid because the capacity of the powerlines & generation is much much more than what someone can consume from home, but a neighbourhood running ADSL2+ flat out would saturate the upstream link of an ISP.

Re:So confused

[gangien]

Net Neutrality isn't about the government controlling the internet, it's about preventing corporations using leverage to control the internet and/or hold bandwidth hostage for competitive advantage or to inhibit the flow of free information.

So it's about the government controlling the internet. Or is the government telling corporations what they can or cannot do with their property, not control?

But anyways, it might not be so bad now, but just wait til the some new threat comes up on the internet and BAM FCC needs more authority, and whatever else. It's already happening, and you want them to have more power, because you're worried about a situation that could have happened for the last 10 years, but has not.

That's not to mention that they create ways for corporations to try to financially ruin individuals that are accused of infringing on a rather small scale, even if the evidence that they have done so is shaky.

which all goes through the court system which is run by what again? the government.

Re:So confused

[hairyfeet]

Afraid not friend, as I was told the minimum pricing under this "new" plan is $107 per month and that is ONLY if you take the phone and TV (which BTW there is NO WAY NOT to take the TV, as they refuse to sell you anything without it) and there is NO tiered pricing or ala carte or anything but bend over baby, yeah! It should be pretty obvious that this is NOT about bandwidth, it is about having an Apple style walled garden. The corps has seens it, they wants it, they will has it! My choices are $106 for a lousy 36GB with TV I don't want or $200 for business...with TV I don't want. Notice a common thread there? The "TV I don't want" part? They are making sure that THEIR entertainment package is THE way you will get shows , and you will take it and like it!

Re:So confused

[nabsltd]

Cool use for the internet -- wasn't aware of that use.

You weren't aware that the Internet is used to transfer data? Please turn in your Slashdot ID card on the way out.

Seriously, though, with picture and video sharing with friends and relatives, online backup services, VoIP phones, and a host of other types of use that don't even start to touch some of the real hogs (Netflix downloads, etc.), just about any cap set by an ISP becomes too small very quickly.

Re:So confused

[iamroot]

I can think of so many ways to justify > 5GB per month that I really can't list them all here, but here are just a few that I have personally done:

1. Offsite backups.
I've done frequent rsync backups of my cohosted webservers. This alone can take WAY more than 5GB. I've also backed up local files to offsite servers.

2. I work on robotic systems and have sometimes worked at home. This can involve working with HUGE amounts of recorded data (this could be something like four 60fps HD video streams, hyperspectral video, FLIR, RADAR, 3D LADAR, etc... and lossy compression is not acceptable). Typically, I'd only download a small sample data set to work on, but that could be easily WAY more than 5GB.

3. Photo uploads
I do photography as a hobby. Sometimes I get > 5GB of photos I want to upload at one time.

4. Web design
I do a bit of freelance web design on the side. Typically this involves modifying an existing site. I will typically set up a testing server at home and download the entire site to it, do my changes and testing there, then upload the final product. This can consume more than 5GB easily.

In practice I am currently averaging 160GB down, 80 up in a month.

This is beside the point though. If I had a 5GB cap, I'd probably not do these things. The fact that I don't is what allows me do do them.

If I had a 5GB cap, I might not even complain too much about it. After all, I wouldn't be doing anything that needed more bandwidth.

Sure, I don't need to use more than 5GB/month. I also don't need the internet at all. For that matter, I could probably just get rid of all my home computers since I don't really need them. I didn't always have them for that matter. Yet having them allows me to do things I could do otherwise.

My point is that deciding what people are allowed to use based on what they need right now is a bad idea. If we do that, we discourage additional development, we end up stuck with the internet as it is now. If we do that, in 20 years people will still be satisfied with their 5GB limits and they won't even know about all the great things that could have existed otherwise.

The excess bandwidth allows for innovation. The internet isn't just about E-Mail and web browsing. It is a general purpose communications network that can be used for whatever people need it for, including things that haven't even been thought of yet. That's what makes it so powerful.

Re:So confused

[dingram17]

Interesting, interesting.

I guess when you're used to 'unlimited' data you do come up with interesting ways of using the internet that do require large amounts of traffic. I also put photos on the net, manage/mirror a couple of websites, but the volumes are not huge.

When I first got on the net the connection our country had to the US was sponsored by the NSF and was a 128kbit/s satellite link. Later on it went to a few Mbit/s. When I was at university traffic outside of the country was charged at $25/Mbyte, which made browsing with Mosaic expensive, but iPhone was worth it. I think that the conditions faced when you start using something affect your usage long term, so younger people are probably using the internet in more interesting ways than us older-farts.

Re:So confused

[dingram17]

Ohh, someone has learnt how to post out of context. News Corp just called -- they want you on staff NOW!

Re:So confused

[dingram17]

That sucks. Teltra charge the cable internet $100 if you don't take any other services. It is $90 if you have phone with them (conventional phone, not VoIP). If you have multiple services (such as a cellphone), the price drops to $70 for the internet component.

Telstra is fairly wierd in that it is the incumbent phone company and the part-owner of a cable TV network. Australia is wierd in that we have two cable networks in the capital cities. I have Optus cable and Telstra cable strung from the same power poles outside my house.

Sounds like the US needs a competition/fair play department.

Re:So confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would he not choose his OS based on the internet connection? One is free to update while the others cost money. Are you too fucking thick to see this? Some people are born morons due to an accident of birth, but you, sir, are a self made man.

Re:So confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Your analogy for COICA isn't really on all fours;

An analogy that isn't on its hands and knees? What?

Re:So confused

[Anonymous Coward]

He's talking about 15 tracks as in 15 different recording streams in one session - this could be for one music track.

Basically, each drum, cymbal, hat, tom etc has it's own microphone and stream during recording - this allows the 'track' for each part of the kit to be panned and equalised and dimmed separately, which makes production of the finished track a whole lot easier. So, 1 minute of recording is 3(bytes)x88200(samples/sec)x15(tracks)x60(seconds) -> 227.1 Megabytes. In other words, a gig for a single 4 minute song - and that's just covering one take.

It shouldn't be hard to see how quickly you'll hit a cap doing that, and with a 76GB 'cap' he can't even expect to use a business service to get around the problem.

Re:So confused

[shnull]

round here, you just have to pay an arm and a leg to be capless but they still have some small print 'fair use' policy that lets them disconnect you if you use double the average of every user with the same account of yours, it stinks, its way too expensive, but its all we have, so please ask your president to come free us from our two Isp's, its not like you're getting a lot of results in afghanistan, is it ?

Re:So confused

[dingram17]

If the internet can't cope then that sounds like a job for carrier pigeons with uSD cards, or at least the post. For the cost of the service at $100+ per month that makes for a lot of letters.

15 tracks for percussion does sound like a lot, but I'm no musician. Good use for unlimited internet, but I can't see that application taking off here. Maybe 48k 24b would be more suitable?

Re:So confused

[zeroshade]

There is a very large difference between a regulation saying that "Corporations may not take this action" and a regulation that states "the government may legally take this action".

So it's about the government controlling the internet. Or is the government telling corporations what they can or cannot do with their property, not control?

That 'property' was built with the taxpayers money (given to the telecoms to build out infrastructure) thus it is technically public property.

because you're worried about a situation that could have happened for the last 10 years, but has not.

Because the incentive wasn't there and the legality of doing it wasn't certain due to people not knowing whether common carrier rules applied or not. Then the FCC reclassified broadband to NOT be title II, and things started to clarify and the incentives showed up. Now many ISPs have explicitly stated that they want to do this. Look at the recent situation with Comcast and Netflix. Or the previous situation with Comcast and torrents. AT&T and Verizon have both explicitly stated they want to be able to offer their services and make them faster than other services on the network. So the 'solution in search of a problem' rebuttal is just bullshit.

which all goes through the court system which is run by what again? the government.

Actually, it's partially run by the people by way of juries. Not to mention it is only due to the laws that the courts can allow this sort of thing to happen. Thereby stopping a law that would do just that is a good thing. Net neutrality goes against corporations, not for them. It says what ISPs are not allowed to do, not what the government is allowed to do.

Not all regulation is equal. There is good regulation and bad regulation.

Re:So confused

[gangien]

That 'property' was built with the taxpayers money (given to the telecoms to build out infrastructure) thus it is technically public property.

So the government should be running the internet then? or wait, you say they gave it to the telecoms, thus it's the telecoms property, not public.

Because the incentive wasn't there and the legality of doing it wasn't certain due to people not knowing whether common carrier rules applied or not. Then the FCC reclassified broadband to NOT be title II, and things started to clarify and the incentives showed up. Now many ISPs have explicitly stated that they want to do this. Look at the recent situation with Comcast and Netflix. Or the previous situation with Comcast and torrents. AT&T and Verizon have both explicitly stated they want to be able to offer their services and make them faster than other services on the network. So the 'solution in search of a problem' rebuttal is just bullshit.

You know, it's perfectly legal for X company to charge you more for Y service. But you can make endless excuses as to why it hasn't happened. Yes I'm sure some will/have tried it.

Net neutrality goes against corporations, not for them. It says what ISPs are not allowed to do, not what the government is allowed to do.

That'll be ineffective and will stiffle potential innovation. And in 10 years, it will get more power. I mean the FDA is getting more power.. for nothing really. that can't happen with net neutrality, HAH.

Not all regulation is equal. There is good regulation and bad regulation.

Is there good regulation? yes, but it's few and far between. mostly it's regulation that jsut adds costs and slows people and progress down. Some of it is down right evil.

But don't worry, you will get your way. I have no doubt. And you'll regret it, when they demand your private keys or your passwords or instant access to your private data or whatever else is deemed necessary to protect people, or whatever stupid excuse there is.

Re:So confused

[zeroshade]

You know it's perfectly legal for X company to charge you more for Y service.

But it's wrong for a company to use their control of one industry (ISPs providing internet service) to leverage themselves in another industry (ISPs providing for example, streaming video). You even admit that "some will/have tried it" so the question is that you don't find it wrong for an ISP to intentionally slow down or charge extra money from a company that provides a streaming service that competes with their own?

That'll be ineffective and will stiffle[sic] potential innovation.

Actually, the lack of neutrality will stifle innovation. The internet has only prospered until now due to neutrality. As long as the content producer pays for their own bandwidth they can supply to whoever wants to download. Now ISPs want to, in addition to what the content companies will be paying for their own bandwidth, charge them for the privilege of being on their network? Or simply just slow down a competing service so that their service is used more? Give me a break. It will prevent developers from wanting to develop internet applications that may overlap with something provided by an ISP. Ideas like Netflix would go wasted because people will only use what the ISP provides because it would cost much more to use the competing services.

Is there good regulation? yes, but it's few and far between. mostly it's regulation that just adds costs and slows people and progress down. Some of it is down right evil.

I'm sure you also don't like the regulations that enforce clean water and clean air, or maybe the health regulations that help ensure you won't get food poisoning from a restaurant you decide to go to. The original common carrier regulation that was passed in the Telecommunications Act is the reason that the phone industry prospered and grew and innovated.

Net neutrality, in context of what most here on Slashdot speak of it as, is about preventing discrimination and disallowing censorship. Please explain to me how a law or power that effectively says corporations cannot block content from a service and that they cannot discriminate based on the source of said content could possibly be used by the government to control the internet? It would be like saying that the government controls the private sector because of the anti-discrimination regulations for hiring for business. Or the government runs the food industry due to regulations enforcing clean food that is safe to consume.

Your entire argument is predicated on all regulation that you don't like is evil and you should fear anything the government wants to do. In addition you believe the ISPs who claim that net neutrality will stifle innovation (when in fact it will foster it).

But don't worry, you will get your way. I have no doubt. And you'll regret it, when they demand your private keys or your passwords or instant access to your private data or whatever else is deemed necessary to protect people, or whatever stupid excuse there is.

I hope we do get Net Neutrality, when even the "Father of the Internet" Tim Berners-Lee supports it, you have to realize there is credibility in the concept. As for demanding private keys, passwords, instant access to data, etc. That has nothing to do with net neutrality nor could a net neutrality policy be turned into that. It would have to be something entirely separate added in which I would of course object to, as would many people. You are afraid of possible abuse of the regulation. I understand that, I do. Right now, I'm afraid of abuse without the regulation. The difference is your fear is "possible" and may or may not happen. The abuse by ISPs of the market without neutrality is already happening and certain to continue. A properly constructed Network Neutrality policy will address only Net Neutrality and abuses can be watched for and dealt with by the people. Just as anything else.

Besides, as evidenced by the COICA bill, net neutrality is not needed for the government to try to take control of the internet. We don't want government control of the internet, we want preventions against corporate control of the internet.

Call a spade a shovel-ready project

[Anonymous Coward]

Gov't keeps trying to commandeer a private and cooperative institution that we are paying for by choice.

If gov't wants to control a network, then it should build a public network. A network that is administered by the gov't, paid for by tax dollars and freely accessible by all citizens.

It's a long overdue, shovel-ready project with enormous military and fiscal implications, but the old farts in Washington won't wake up until one of those implications bites them in the ass.

Minor quibble...

[symbolset]

Censor the Internet? Unpossible.

The bill, if enacted, might have given the US government authorization to try. Once upon a time A bill was introduced in Indiana attempting to alter the value of pi.

Naturally any such censorship law would run afoul of the first amendment anyway, so a constitutional amendment would be required to make a credible attempt. And of course if enacted it would be as successful as attempting to control the distribution of alcohol or other harmful substances. It would do no more than breed contempt for law.

Write an email

[wmbetts]

by going to http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm. Send the Senator a letter saying thank you.

Looks like it's going to the senate

[locketine]

http://electronics.costfreehost.com/2010/11/20/web-censorship-bill-appears-dead-for-now-but-will-it-stay-dead/

That sure didn't take them long!

who votes for Senators?

[falconwolf]

Yes, but remember that originally the House was elected by popular vote while the Senators were appointed by the legislatures of their respective states. The "cooling" effect had a lot to do with being unconcerned with things like winning campaigns, ensuring that campaign contributions keep flowing, popular trends, and knee-jerk emotional issues (like fear-based security theater). Senators had more of a free hand to do what they personally believed should be done, compared to representatives in the House who always had to wet their finger to see which way the wind was blowing.

That purpose is largely defeated by having the senators elected by popular vote. Now they have to represent their campaign donors and supporters more than they represent their states, same as the House.

Ah but states had more right back then, when state legislatures appointed senators. With senators appointed by states it was supposed to guaranty states rights.

I think one fix is to introduce at the federal level what Texas does. By the Texas Constitution the Texas legislature only meets 140 days every other year.

I've also proposed, and will again, amending the USA Constitution in other ways. For instance Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President changed the way the president and vice president were elected. I propose to amend how they are elected again. This tyme though the electoral college is abolished and all candidates run for president. However voting would use a condorcet method wherein the candidates are ranked. Voters would rank their choices, say there are five candidates the voter's first choice would get 5 points, the second choice 4, and so on. The points for each candidate are then added up with the winner, highest score, becoming president and the runner-up the vice president. As an added twist voters might also negatively rank candidates, the voter can give candidate they absolutely oppose a negative score. Say -5 which is subtracted from the candidate's score.

Falcon

Re:who votes for Senators?

[decoy256]

I appreciate your out-of-the-box thinking, but your specific suggestion for changing the way the president and vice-president are elected is problematic at best. This would lead to horrendously confusing presidential elections. For crying out loud... we have problems choosing ONE president... now you want us to rank among numerous candidates? You'll have situations where one candidate will get the majority of "5"s, but another will get more "4"s and when all the numbers are tabulated, the guy with more 4s wins. That's just confusing as hell. And don't even get me started with your idea of negative numbers. Yowzah!

I say we keep the electoral college, but eliminate the process by which a candidate can win the whole state, even if he/she only gets 51% of the vote. That is how we end up with screwy elections results. If a state with 10 electoral votes is split 60-40 between the two candidates, you'd have 6 votes for one and 4 for the other. That is only fair.

The way it is now, if you live in a state that votes predominantly toward one party or another, the people from the other party are essentially silenced in the presidential elections. For instance, in Washington State, the vote usually goes towards Democrat, so all the people in the state that vote Republican essentially don't really get a vote because their vote just ends up getting tossed out by the overwhelming majority. Or take Texas which predominantly votes Republican... all the Democrats are silenced. It gives the illusion that there are "Red" and "Blue" states, when each state is a dynamic conglomeration of people of varying political sympathies. The Electoral College should reflect that.

I think the only fair answer is to return the electoral college to proportional representation.

Re:who votes for Senators?

[Erikderzweite]

Great Idea. Also, ban all the people who don't understand the system after it is being explained to them for 5 minutes and you will have best electoral system ever.

gridlock

[falconwolf]

Having the entire system dependent on campaign strategies and contributions defeats that all by itself (everything is pulling in the same basic direction: getting re-elected).

If you believe gridlock is good, and I agree it is, then with the new congress next year we may have gridlock, see how Republicans gained control of the House? Now how did they do that? By those campaign strategies and contributions you deplore.

Falcon

Re:gridlock

[Reziac]

And the whole damned system is a mess, on both sides of the aisle -- so yeah, I want BOTH sides out of the contribution/re-election treadmill.

Returning to a part-time Congress might help, too. Who said "politician" was supposed to be a career choice??

[Sorry someone modded you troll; it's a good point. Almost everyone in D.C. is guilty on these counts. Unfortunately, in today's political world you don't really have a choice.]

Re:gridlock

[falconwolf]

Returning to a part-time Congress might help, too. Who said "politician" was supposed to be a career choice??

In a post up thread I referred to that. I'd add an amendment like what's in the Texas Constitution. The state legislature sessions are only 140 days in odd-numbered years. I might have it only 120 days though.

Falcon

Re:gridlock

[Reziac]

Montana's state legislature is 90 days every two years. As one of the Founders pointed out, people make different (hopefully better!) decisions when they have to return home and work for a living, alongside the people whose lives their lawmaking affects.

Re:The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oreg

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are the communists ( I say that in the pejorative sense ) who introduced this bill? I'll check for responses after I finish preparing some tar and feathers.

Re:The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oreg

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow someone from my party in power doing something that I fully agree with and applaud. ...this is a strange feeling.

Email him! Communicate with your government!

[Dreyu.wolfe]

I emailed him my thanks. I encourage other Oregonians to do the same. I also think it's important to make the distinction that being against this and other poorly written similar bills that restrict freedoms is *not* the same as being pro-piracy. This is a distinction many people (not here, per se, but in other media) seem to be failing to make. Let him know you understand that distinction and you appreciate his paying attention to it. His link is: http://wyden.senate.gov/

Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

I would, but I already used all of my points. The linked article is a good read.

'“Social networks are particularly effective at increasing motivation,” Aaker and Smith write. But that’s not true. Social networks are effective at increasing participation—by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires.'

fighting

[falconwolf]

And all of those cool military gadgets we ooh and ahh over will be deployed against citizens aspiring for freedom.

Like so many others, you're making the same mistake believing the US military will fight against it's own citizens. It didn't work for the Chinese during the Tiananmen Square protests and it won't in the US. See the party bosses in Beijing feared local army units would join with the protesters if ordered to fire on them and fight against other army units. There were even reports of some army units shooting at others. So what did the bosses do? They had to order the PLA's, People's Liberation Army, 27th Army into the city from other provinces or parts of China.

It's my guess you've never served in the US military either. When I was in the US Army I was in the infantry, you know one of those on the front line shooting at and being shot at by the enemy. I and others I served with would have shot or fragged an officer giving a bad order. I bet my nephew who's a Marine, and has served in Iraq, would not hesitate to do the same.

Oh, and let's look at Iraq. The US military hasn't been able to stop the insurgency and fighting there yet. There is less fighting but partially because the Iraqi and US military negotiated with some of the militia factions there.

Falcon

What a curious view on history

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a matter of opinion whether the foundations of USA were built when europeans began moving to the continent (in 16th century), when the nation gained independence (in the 18th century) during the industrialization period or at some other phase... Perhaps all of those. But we must remember how USA oppressed the native americans since the very beginning and then the african american slaves (all the way until 19th century)... And that's before we take into account that women weren't allowed to vote until 1920 and black people got their suffrage even later. Some of the actions of USA during the world wars (rounding up the japanese...) or the cold war don't exactly champion freedom, either. Historically, when americans have spoken about freedom they have spoken about "freedom from the british empire" or other such things that have nothing to do with what we assosciate with the word today (IE: Civil liberties, personal freedom and the like).

This is my pet peeve: Despite everything that Bush administration did (and that Obama administration didn't reverse), we are currently living in a period where people enjoy more freedom than ever before... So it always catches my eye when someone speaks about the things that the country was supposedly built upon.

It's bribery

[falconwolf]

It is not bribery when one person helps another person get elected. And yes, a pool of low income individuals can help a candidate get elected. Obama was elected relying on many small donations.

Influencing your elected representatives should be a simple matter of writing a letter and nothing else.

And if they do a good job helping them get reelected. But if they don't then help get someone else elected instead of them, even if that someone else is "none of the above".

Falcon

Re:It's bribery

[Samantha Wright]

That's not democracy.

Wow

[mr_death]

... a Senator with a clue and some balls. What a rare combination these days.

the usual anti-freedom/DRM-worshipping boneheads

[mr_death]

.. especially Franken, Schumer, Kyl, Hatch, and Feinstein.

elections

[falconwolf]

we have problems choosing ONE president

Nothing changes, only one person will be president. And second place is the VP.

You'll have situations where one candidate will get the majority of "5"s, but another will get more "4"s and when all the numbers are tabulated, the guy with more 4s wins.

Citation needed.

I say we keep the electoral college

The electoral college is not needed. The only reason it was created is because most Founding Fathers didn't think the average person was educated enough to make an informed decision. While I agree that still applies that's because too many voters let others make decisions for themselves. Back when the Constitution was drafted many people weren't very educated.

but eliminate the process by which a candidate can win the whole state, even if he/she only gets 51% of the vote.

This is not needed. If the electoral college is proportionally allocated what difference is there between that and a direct election? They come out the same way.

The way it is now, if you live in a state that votes predominantly toward one party or another, the people from the other party are essentially silenced in the presidential elections.

Direct voting eliminates that. And using a Condorcet method of voting eliminates any need for run-off elections, every voter gets to pick their first and second choice. Now I saved this for last:

And don't even get me started with your idea of negative numbers. Yowzah!

Instead of voting for who I wanted to vote for, in 2000 and again in 2004 I specifically voted against the candidate I opposed. A number of others do the same thing but by ranking and including negative votes, that eliminates any sense of the need to vote for the lesser of two evils. But I suppose that you don't want that.

Falcon

Re:elections

[riverat1]

Back when the Constitution was drafted many people weren't very educated.

What makes you think they're educated now?

Re:elections

[decoy256]

I'll just address a few issues.

First, there is a difference between being educated and being informed. The people at the time of the Constitution may not have been formally educated, but most made it their responsibility to be better informed about their world. The electoral college had nothing to do with dealing with an "uneducated" populous (for one, only land owners could vote and the vast majority of them were educated or at least literate)... it had more to do with the Founding Father's vehement opposition to pure democracy, which they viewed as one of the worst forms of government. The electoral college was intended to soften the volatility of pure democracy.

Second, you request a "Citation" in reference to my assertion that a person with lots of "4"s would end up being president. Allow me to illustrate.

Population: 100

Each person gets 5 "votes" (i.e. ranking 5 people from 5 to 1 in order of preference) 51 people give candidate A a "5"... the other 49 people give him a 1. Giving him a total of 304 "points" (255 from the "5"s and 49 from the "1"s).

Candidate B only needs to get 64 "4" votes and he'd win.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think our current two-party system is very good, but I wouldn't rush to solve the problems by throwing our entire system. First, I'd try to prune off those things that were hastily added to begin with, then once we've pared it down to that, let it work for a few cycles and revisit any problems that crop up, but in a more measured and careful manner.

Re:elections

[falconwolf]

What makes you think they're educated now?

Though I agree with your sentiment, more people graduate from high school now I bet than they did back during the American Revolution. And it's easier for people to get more information. Walk into a library for access to magazines and newspapers. Or to use a computer for internet access. Though I complain about how bad politics is today, it's nothing compared to when Thomas Paine wrote "These are the times that try men's souls".

Falcon

Re:elections

[riverat1]

Well, my comment was mostly a snark, trying to be funny.

But people may have better access to information today but that doesn't necessarily mean they take advantage of it. Many people are too lazy (or too busy living their lives) to spend any time trying to understand the issues that we face. They just take their opinions from some authority figure. I doubt the percentage of the population that is knowledgeable about political issues is much different today then it was at the time of the Revolution. One of the most intelligent people I have ever met only had a 5th grade formal education.

Missed something in the summary

[damn_registrars]

I noticed that the summary did not mention the senator is a Democrat. Interesting, considering how often slashdot summaries mention the party affiliation of Republicans when they do something that slashdot agrees with, or Democrats when they do something that slashdot opposes. I had to look him up on wikipedia to find his affiliation.

Re:Missed something in the summary

[PotatoFiend]

Slashdot seems to be slowly adopting a a new strategy to steer away from pointless partisan flaming. Please support it.

That's not democracy.

[falconwolf]

That is exactly what democracy is, people supporting what they like and opposing what they don't like.

If you really believe that is not democracy I don't know what your definition of democracy is.

Falcon

Re:That's not democracy.

[Samantha Wright]

"Supporting what you like and opposing what you don't like" describes many systems of government. Democracy requires that votes be weighted equally (discarding for a moment the issue of unequal representation of populations via e.g. electoral colleges). What you're describing is plutocracy.

Re:That's not democracy.

[cheekyjohnson]

Right, because accepting bribes from people who likely have more money than everyone combined (at least more money than everyone who opposes them) is totally fair.

I don't care if you consider money freedom of speech, it has no place in a 'democracy' (this one is ruled by the rich).

Re:That's not democracy.

[kumanopuusan]

It's not democracy if you have to pay to elect the candidates.

In your system, anyone or anything with currency convertible to dollars can influence elections. Why do we even bother with voting? We can just let whoever collects the most money win! Oh, and since the candidates can spend their own money, let's skip the collecting part. Let's just automatically elect the candidate with the largest bank balance.

Or, maybe, each eligible voter could be given one vote that has the same importance as every other vote.

Re:That's not democracy.

[falconwolf]

"Supporting what you like and opposing what you don't like" describes many systems of government. Democracy requires that votes be weighted equally (discarding for a moment the issue of unequal representation of populations via e.g. electoral colleges). What you're describing is plutocracy.

You can disagree with me all you want, all I ask is for you to think and use reasoning, and not to make things up. Nowhere did I say I supported a plutocracy. I dare you to point how where I advocated government be run by a group of the rich and not democratically.

If you can't then I have nothing else to say.

falcon

Re:That's not democracy.

[falconwolf]

Like so many others, you're making things up. You must be a troll.

Falcon

Re:That's not democracy.

[Samantha Wright]

You are saying that in order to win an election, a candidate requires money. Read through Wikipedia's entire article on plutocracy, as linked from your Onelook hit. The position you're putting up is that candidates with money (which you just so happen to be giving them!) have a better shot at getting elected.

The fact that this is the case practically is unfortunate, but not something that is a legitimate component of democracy, where candidates should be elected based on their merits as leaders. Any view that accepts or endorses otherwise is cementing the idea that wealth should have an impact on candidate success.

Campaign contributions are simply a means of providing the wealth necessary to create and maintain a plutocracy to candidates who are not independently wealthy.

Re:That's not democracy.

[cheekyjohnson]

I forgot that corporations who have far more money than anyone else lobbying to get the support of politicians is completely fair, sorry.

This is a republic, and the sheer amount of corruption makes that very clear.

Re:The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oreg

[slick7]

The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oregon. Senator Stephen Conroy of Australia, take note.

Well I guess that now the elections are over, it's back to no business as usual. When the politicians stop fearing the voters, it's time for the voters to fear the politicians.
Slap, slap Mr. Rangle, slap, slap Mr. Delay.

Re:The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oreg

[Internetuser1248]

The entirely depends on how many. Some internet activism organisations most notably avaaz have demonstrated in the last year or so that mass letter writing can give a website the power to change government policy.

Re:The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oreg

[Schadrach]

...silly mods, that's not offtopic. It's just somone trying to pretend that laws are used for what they claim they're for, and don't get abused at every turn. On it's face, the purpose of the law is to stop online counterfeit goods, it just claims that the way to do that is to give the feds the abilitiy to arbitrarily shut down any website at any time, without even the need for a proper injunction against them first, or even a copyright claim (I would have thought DMCA letters would be sufficient for the "shut down a website at any time on request" thing, but I'm guessing some people fight them?)

Re:The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oreg

[thelawoffives]

In the spirit of telling our public officials when they do right, please pass on some "thanks, keep up the good work" to Ron Wyden: http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/ The name of the bill is the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act"

Re:The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oreg

[BearGriz72]

GO Sen. Wyden - Makes me proud to be an Oregonian -- Kudos sent via web at: http://wyden.senate.gov/

Contact him!

[Khith]

Seriously, Oregonians or not, I suggest contacting this man and praising him for his position. We tend to write our elected officials when we're angry with what they're doing, but we also need to let them know when we're happy that they've done something we like.

http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/

Re:The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oreg

[guyminuslife]

Why use the word "communist" as a pejorative when it has no real relationship to issue at hand? What kind of a carpetbagger would do that?

I have met senator Wyden once

[alphanetworking]

He was touring my facility, when he walked into my office, noticed I had multiple ssh sessions going on, had a mapping problem, and piles of hardware about. He shook my hand, and made a comment about IT running the organization. Yep.

Re:The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oreg

[dryeo]

Paper mail scores a lot higher. Write him a hand written letter to let him know you care enough to put in more time then clicking a link. I would if I was an American.

Re:The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oreg

[Anonymous Coward]

A bullet sounds the same in every language. I know how to make Conroy listen.

Re:The free world thanks you Senator Wyden of Oreg

[dbIII]

Senator Stephen Conroy of Australia, take note.

Some background on what's happening here and why he won't take note.
In Australia we have Telstra. It's a bizzare beast that was created when a government owned monopoly was told to go out and make money on it's own and then years later a bit over half of it was sold off, but the Government still owns enough in the "Future Fund" that it's difficult for to do anything involving Telstra without it looking like a conflict of interest or a kick in the teeth to people that bought Telstra shares. It has the worst aspects of Government and some of the worst aspects of private enterprise and is full of people that are experts at gaming both systems. That turns the Communications portfolio in the Australian Government into a punishment post where whoever sits in that chair can get almost nothing done. That means that the utter bastard that all the other bastards in Government hate but has enough factional power to get a minister's job gets put in Communications. That's Conroy, the man that blamed the delays of due process on a lesbian cabal that was out to get him.

In that case...

[falconwolf]

I don't want my tax dollars being used to support a war I don't agree with.

Neither do I. I opposed the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. I opposed them when Dubya ordered them, I opposed them when his father sent troops to evict Saddam's army from Kuwait, and I opposed Clinton ordering airstrikes in both nations too. Most of all I oppose it when both Reagan and Bush Sr supported Saddam and hated when Bush and Clinton left Afghanistan to fester after the Soviet withdrew.

I don't want them used on entitlement programs that I consider to be straight-up vote-buying. I don't want them used to build a "bridge to nowhere" as part of typical pork-barrel politics. I don't want them used to support drug prohibition or any other victimless-crime enforcement because I oppose those on principle. I don't want them used to perpetually extend copyright. I don't want them used to pay a salary to people who spend even one picosecond looking for a way to censor the Internet.

Obviously you haven't read many of my posts dealing with politics and government. I oppose all these too, so don't say I do. No, for years and years I've posted right here on Slashdot how I hate big government and want the small government the USA Constitution authorizes.

I'd be glad to fund politicians I dislike. This would serve a crucial function. It would mean that other voters can choose to vote for those candidates even if I personally wouldn't. I want them to have that choice and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.

Come on, the lack of public funding does not prevent a person from running for office. If it were required no candidate would ever run, no one can simply decide to run and have public funds handed to them.

Right now it's a contest of who can raise the most money and if you don't believe that, do the research yourself. Organizations (incl. corporations) wouldn't be able to support candidates for the same good reasons that organizations don't get to vote -- they're not human beings.

I suggest you do your own research, the candidate with the most money does not always win. This tyme Obama, who had the most money, did win. And where did the money come from? Millions of voters.

And just like so many other imbeciles you concluded, without asking me or reading what I said elsewhere, that I support corporate donations to candidates or supporting one side of an issue or another. Nowhere did I say I did, but I have repeatedly said a corporation is not a person and does not have the same rights.

Now if you want an intelligent conversation we can have one, but do not make things up about me.

Falcon

Re:In that case...

[causality]

Obviously you haven't read many of my posts dealing with politics and government.

Actually I was talking about myself only. See how all of those sentences began with "I"? Whether you feel the same way or not has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I was making. Your agreement with my politics is not necessary to demonstrate that lots of people would like to have control over how their tax money is used. That isn't a personal statement about you. Forgive me, but get over yourself. (that last sentence was a personal statement about you, if you're confused)

My primary point was that this particular involuntary use of tax money actually has some significant upsides. I'll connect the dots for you and say that what I am getting at is that the upside outweighs the downsides.

My secondary point was that if you want choices over how your taxes are used, there are bigger fish to fry than the comparatively benign issue of public campaign financing.

Come on, the lack of public funding does not prevent a person from running for office. If it were required no candidate would ever run, no one can simply decide to run and have public funds handed to them.

Public financing is not a matter of running or not running. I don't know how you miss the point so thoroughly. Rather, public financing is about how a candidate runs for office and the nature of that campaign. It's a qualitative change, not a quantitative one.

I suggest you do your own research, the candidate with the most money does not always win.

I did not use the word "always" for a reason. Apparently on Slashdot you have to make that bleedin' obvious because people are careless with their writing and expect you to be equally careless. Nope, if I don't say "always" or "in every possible case" it's because I don't mean those things. Anyway, research many Congressional and Presidential elections and you will find that the vast preponderence of the time, money is a huge deciding factor.

What was that you were saying about people making things up and/or failing to understand what you do and don't say? I seem to have heard some noise or another about that...

Re:In that case...

[falconwolf]

More noise, I'm done.

Falcon

Re:So confused -- corporate lacky

[lpq]

Someone wrote: Yet the most powerful argument against net neutrality is that it could (and likely would) result in government censorship. Net neutrality is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to put the Internet under the purview of the government, packaged such that it sells to geeks.

How do you equate non-discrimination with government censorship?

As for the government seeking to put the Internet under the purview of the government: the US constitution already gives the government control over interstate commerce and traffic - so it constitutionally already has "purview"... i.e. that's a moot point. The issue is, always, what they do with that control -- just like the job market. There, they implement non-discrimination policies which people also rally against, because it limits their right to discriminate.

Gee, really sad.

Those that provide services will continue to want to have unethical control for the purpose of exploiting and gouging customers in a non-competitive market. The only thing stopping them are governments "by and for the people". Corporations will continue to lie and deceive people by telling them that complete nonsense like: non-discrimination=censorship! It's obvious propaganda, attempting to deceive people into supporting policies that are really very harmful to those people.

Bullshit, ever read the constitution?

[MikeRT]

The Constitution rarely minces words. The simplest way of reading it is "when in doubt, don't." That's the way the 10th amendment was written. There are grey areas like "implied powers" such as being able to create the CIA to do civilian intelligence or the Air Force (as they are implied by the ability to raise military forces for military purposes), but on many things, there is no grey at all. Federal law enforcement, for example, has no jurisdiction to actually enforce any crime that happens only inside one state's borders unless that crime is enumerated in the Constitution as federal jurisdiction (like counterfeiting or treason). The DEA cannot constitutionally raid a medical marijuana dispensary in California unless that dispensary is doing a side business that crosses California's borders.

Liberals and many types on the right just happen to hate the limits the US Constitution imposes on their social agendas because they want to remake all of America in their image. It creates a very limited federal government. Congress was never intended to be where America did most of its legislative business. We'd be better off with very strict originalism, if for no other reason than it'd cripple the ability of lobbyists to use Congress to force their agenda on the whole country.

legislative sessions

[falconwolf]

Montana's state legislature is 90 days every two years.

Really? Yeap! That's even better.

As one of the Founders pointed out, people make different (hopefully better!) decisions when they have to return home and work for a living, alongside the people whose lives their lawmaking affects.

I agree compeatly. Where before there were citizen legislatures where those elected to office had other jobs today politics has become a career. Congress has a better pension than most people working for private employers do.

While I hate the idea of politics as a career, I also hate term limits. So congressional sessions need to be limited in length. Ninety days every other year would do wonders. Another step would be if the Constitution of the USA authorizes the law require most laws to have a sunset provision of say 5 years. If after 5 years the law was good then it could be reinstated for another 5 years.

Falcon

Re:legislative sessions

[Reziac]

No argument there!

As to those pensions, even at max they should reflect how long someone served, not default to the max pension even for the minimum service. This isn't the military, where you volunteer to potentially get shot at, and where it may BE a valid career.

I had an idea too, that rather than being elected, legislators should be randomly chosen from a pool of qualified candidates. (Didn't the ancient Greek system do something like that?) Anyway the idea is to entirely get rid of the campaign/popularity contest aspect, and make it be of no particular benefit to the candidate/elected, since your stint at the wheel couldn't be predicted or gamed.

Re:legislative sessions

[falconwolf]

As to those pensions, even at max they should reflect how long someone served

I believe there shouldn't be any pension for elected offices, it's not a career choice. Congressional pay should only pay for travel from the district the person was elected in to Washington DC and living expenses while there for session. With sessions being only every other year and limited to 90 days $10,000 maybe $20,000 should cover it.

I had an idea too, that rather than being elected, legislators should be randomly chosen from a pool of qualified candidates. (Didn't the ancient Greek system do something like that?)

No, that's a meritocracy. Well parts of Greece may of been meritocracies, but Ancient Athens was democratic.

What's ironic is that Socrates was sentenced to death in Athens because he opposed democracy. And reading Plato's The Republic it has many similarities to Confucius's Analects advocating rule by "proper men" or "gentlemen".

Falcon

Re:legislative sessions

[Reziac]

Well, this experiment in mob rule that we call democracy isn't working so well either, judging by what we've elected over the past couple decades, and how they've screwed over the very people who elected them. :(

By "qualified pool" I didn't necessarily mean by merit, but by citizens of voting age (something like jury duty, except this would be congress duty). However, I do think there is something to the original concept of property ownership being tied to voting rights and possibly to holding office, since under the current system, we have way too much of those with nothing to lose feeling free to take from others.

If you can't tell, I've become somewhat disaffected with the entire concept of democracy; as was pointed out centuries ago, it starts falling apart as soon as the voter realises that he can vote himself largesse from the public treasury.

Re:legislative sessions

[falconwolf]

Well, this experiment in mob rule that we call democracy isn't working so well either, judging by what we've elected over the past couple decades, and how they've screwed over the very people who elected them. :(

I like the way Winston Churchill put it: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Partially because of mob rule we have bad laws.

By "qualified pool" I didn't necessarily mean by merit, but by citizens of voting age (something like jury duty, except this would be congress duty).

I don't know about everywhere in the US but in states like Florida people are added to the potential jury pool by registering to vote. I was called to show up twice. When I went I was hoping to be called to serve on a jury for a drug offense or other victimless crime. I believe in Jully Informed Juries and Jury Nullification and wanted to send the message that these laws were bad and unconstitutional. Unfortunately for 2 days each tyme all I did was sit there waiting to be called for questioning.

If you can't tell, I've become somewhat disaffected with the entire concept of democracy; as was pointed out centuries ago, it starts falling apart as soon as the voter realises that he can vote himself largesse from the public treasury.

Oh, I agree but no government leads to chaos. Some say anarchy can work but I don't see how. So instead I try to limit the size, and power, of government.

Falcon

I'll just address a few issues.

[falconwolf]

First, there is a difference between being educated and being informed.

See my reply to riverat1 above yours.

Second, you request a "Citation" in reference to my assertion that a person with lots of "4"s would end up being president. Allow me to illustrate.

That is not a citation. At most it is a theoretical hypothesis. I can make up my own.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think our current two-party system is very good, but I wouldn't rush to solve the problems by throwing our entire system.

I didn't throw the whole system out. I didn't suggest a dictatorship or king, or getting rid of all government. All I suggested was changing how the president and vice president were elected. Well not all, I have proposed other amendments, such as limiting congressional sessions to 90 days every other year. Politics should not be a career, unlike how it is now.

Actually Thomas Jefferson once said something about there being a revolution every generation or something like that. Unless people have to fight for freedom freedom loses it's meaning to them. They take it for granted, even when there's subterfuge or mission creep wearing freedom away.

Falcon

Oh, and in case I haven't already told you, I fear government far more than any corporation or terrorist. Neither Union Carbide's Bhopal disaster nor Bangalore's terrorist attack killed or maimed as many people as governments have.

money in politics

[falconwolf]

This past election cycle over $400 million was spent on independent expenditures.

Are you sure that's all? In the California governor's race alone Meg Whitman spent more than $140 million of her own money in the campaign. All together she spent more than $160 million. Her opponent Jerry Brown's spending topped $50 million. Now according to those who claim money buys political offices she should have won, spending 3 tymes as much as he did, but he won.

On Anthony Kennedy's decision on the Citizens United case:

It sounds to me like he naively believed that there would be automatic disclosure. I think given that there is a good chance a full disclosure law would be found constitutional.

It was naive of him. However if a law were proposed that addressed full disclosure, and only that, then it may pass USSC scrutiny. Now if that was his thinking I don't know how the government's lawyers overlooked that thinking. A quick google returns results saying that corporations do not have to disclose them. The first two results, Why Don’t Corporations Have To Disclose Their Campaign Contributions Like Unions? and again Why don't corporations have to disclose their campaign contributions like unions? answer the question.

Falcon

Re:money in politics

[riverat1]

Meg Whitman spending her own money on her campaign is not independent expenditures. Independent expenditure is money spent by someone outside of a campaign without coordination with the campaign.

Re:money in politics

[falconwolf]

Meg Whitman spending her own money on her campaign is not independent expenditures.

But she still spend way more than her opponent yet still lost the race. Money does not buy elections.

Falcon

Re:money in politics

[riverat1]

True, but this was California. Some of the things that being Republican forced her to say are not very popular there. Here in Oregon the R, Chris Dudley (the former NBA Center) lost a close race even though he outspent the Democrat by several million dollars (like 7M to 4M). Dudley's big faux pas was to say we should eliminate the minimum wage. A decade ago Oregonians voted overwhelmingly to set a minimum wage that is automatically adjusted for inflation yearly.

I think money is more effective in low key races where name recognition is important.

Re:money in politics

[falconwolf]

So are you ready and willing to say money does not always buy elections? Or is it only in "special circumstances" does the lower spender win?

Falcon

Re:money in politics

[riverat1]

Money doesn't always buy elections. There are plenty of other factors that can get in the way of it. I doubt though that the Governors elections in Oregon and California would have even been as close as they were if Chris Dudley and Meg Whitman has spent the same amount as their opponents. As I said, name recognition is important in elections and spending money is one way to improve that. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

Helps to read the whole post.

[falconwolf]

unless they are so inept that they actually commit a felony that the rest of the members of their chamber or legislative body thinks is blatantly wrong.

And what does that have to do with Ted Steven's conviction? He was convicted in an Alaska court room far away from Washington, DC.

Falcon

definiton of bribery

[falconwolf]

How does this NOT have our government written all over it? By your very definition you seem to give weight to his argument.

You need to learn the definition of "bribe" too. The post I replied to said nothing about campaign donations being illegal or dishonest. And they are not illegal or dishonest.

Falcon