Slashdot Mirror
Campaign Finance Meets the Web
tristan writes "According to the Federal Election Commission expressing your
political views on a personal web site constitutes
a campaign contribution. How big a contribution?
You can start tallying it up by adding up the cost of the
server hardware and software. If it's over $1,000, you
need to register as a political action committee! The ACLU has
a story here. "
The ACLU's solution to the campaign finance mess is to advocate more public funding of elections. Are there other solutions? I'm interested to hear what slashdot readers have to say.
Well, time for some of us to get out that old 486 then I suppose. I am just glad that politics bore me, and this doesnt affect me either way.
Those sub $300 PCs with Linux and Apache are looking more attractive, at least to not be labeled your own political action committee.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
It's times like these when I'm glad to be an Anarchist.
Michael Chisari
While I feel that political speech needs to regulated on the internet, I don't agree how they came up with the costs
I rather doubt this would stand a first ammendment challenge.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If speech is a contribution, then so, arguably, is volunteering for a campaign or simply doing ANYTHING remotely related to politics. How might they compute the cost? Well, using the FEC logic and extrapolating, factor in food, shelter, transportation and all the other necessities...
Newspaper editorials become contributions.
Showing up at a rally and providing a boost by expressing your support on national TV is a contribution.
Delivering a sermon against sin could easily be taken as a contribution.
Oops. Has anybody at the FEC read the Constitution lately?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Where im from if you make donations to certain charities you can claim it as a tax deduction.
If that applied in this case, then tax aint a problem
So does this mean that if I spend more than /for against a candidate, that
$250 to fly to a political rally to stand on the
corner and speak
the FEC views me as a political contributor??
What a load of crap.
Let's say I make flyers for a politcal rally to support my favorite politician, and I use your friendly neighborhood copy store. Wouldn't the cost of the photo copier count to the cost of my contribution? Better yet, I have a phone tree. I call everyone on my phone tree. Does my phone count into the equation?
Just go to anyoe willing to get rid of all of there 486s' and 386' and make a beowulf cluster! Solves your money problems right there... Web serving at its best.
And I suppose the next thing is magazines and newspapers needing to register as PACs because the cost of their printing hardware is over some magical figure. If it costs more than $1000 to publish a politically motivated book do I have to register? The internet in its essence as it presently stands is mostly a way of sharing information in the same way as publishing. So it should be regulated as such. No two ways about it.
/dev/null.
Just one man's opinion. Flames redirected to
Ben
We're all laughing at another wacky us government decision. But like all the rest, it's a case of a law for the public good being stymied by the unforseen use of the internet.
Supposing you had a private plane that you used in your spare time to fly all over america, co-incidentally stopping at every city where your favourite presidential candidate was speaking. If you were going anyway, where's the harm in offering him a lift? The net extra cost is zero.
Same thing here.
I'm not trying to defend the bill. Well, I am, but my point is that law these days is so complex that there will always be unforseen consequences. When these arise, the thing to do is inform the relevent parties. If nothing happens, then bitch and complain and post to slashdot.
We're at the bitching and posting stage now, because legislators still haven't realised that the internet is unlike anything they've dealt with before.
Give 'em time. Twenty years should be enough for them to cop on.
Until then, let's all give thanks for the ACLU.
I don't believe that newspapers with an on-line presence affected by these regulations, yet mine, at least, is forever urging me to support this candidate or the other.
Perhaps all you need to do is start up a newsletter, and have the greatest part of it be the op-ed section.
Jeff
So, if I extoll the virtues of my favorite candidate while wearing an expensive suit, am I required to file?
What if I decide I want to paint a large sign on the side of my house, to draw votes? It's the same thing. The house is being used for other purposes, but it's also an advertisement.
You might say that the only expenditure was the price of the paint, so that was my only contribution, but by that logic, the only expenditures made by this man were the cost of internet access, a tiny portion of hard drive space, etc. Hardly enough to put him over the $1000 limit.
What does it matter is my ideas are expressed on the net using a $50 PC or a $10,000 PC? Does it change my ideas any? This law should not apply to web sites. At least not in this fasion. Maybe is their was a law specifically saying (in abstract political mumbo jumbo), "all web pages, containing political views, to be used to aid in a canidates campain, must be registered with _____.." etc. But judging somone's ideas by the cost of the computer they are on is bogus.
"I couldn't give him (Bill Gates) advice in business and he couldn't give me advice in technology." Linus Torvalds
If you were to staple a pro-[candidate] flier to a telephone pole, would you then have to register as a PAC? Surely, telephone poles cost easily over $1000 apiece...
-cp
What's really scary about the law as it now sits is when a political candidate actively complains to the FEC about sites that they don't like. Case in point is http://www.gwbush.com/
This site, being HIGHLY critical of presidential candidate George W. Bush, is being hounded by the FEC as well. In this case, however, the reason the investigation was begun was because GW Bush's lawyers complained to the FEC. Scary... Very scary... (The very thought of politicians with lawyers terrifies me, but...) Anyway, enough babbling from this humble peasant.
Never ask a geek why, just nod your head and slowly back away. -Rob Malda
I too doubt this would stand up to a first amendment challenge. The Supreme Court decided years ago that TV and radio were special exceptions to the first amendment. No such case has been made on the web yet. Second, I can see grounds for challenging the FEC's calculation of a website's costs - $1000 is a lot more than posting political commentary is really worth. If the guy is using his machines from some other purpose on the web, I doubt his real costs for his political sermonising are $1000.
I'm with the ACLU though - public election funding would probably be the best solution. It seems to work well everywhere else.
Political speech has always been free speech. Now, because I'm using technology to amplify my speech I will need to register with the government? A Web site operator should enjoy the same protection that a newspaper publisher enjoys. There's plenty of political speech in the Op/Ed pages, but you don't see them registering as PAC's. And a newspaper is an enormous capital outlay compared to a Web server.
This doesn't sound right. I'm going to have to call my representatives.
Automatic Sites, LLC
"Vote Tom Swiss (Independent) for Galactic Emperor, I mean President. He promises to completely shirk his duties, never even come to the White House, and return his Presidental salary to the Federal Treasury."
There, I've now made a political statement using /.'s computers, which undoubtedly cost more than $1000. Is /. a PAC? Am I? Are you, if you're reading this on a $1000+ machine?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
When I read this, I was astonished -- momentarily. Then I realized this was exactly the sort of nonsense that would arise from the cry for more campaign finance regulations. I'm sure there are plenty of clueless folk out there who would rather call this a "loophole" than a bad ruling.
The solution is simple: throw out all the ridiculous regulations on campaign financing and simply require full disclosure. If the FEC (which would probably lobby against this, since it would threaten their existence) decided it wanted to classify your site as a political expenditure, all that would be required of you is to have your name there.
Has the FEC targetted anybody but the pro-impeachment feller?
{smirk}Not{/smirk} that I'm suggesting anything here, but...
Unless they're willing to go *THWACK* beating on sites left and right -- discussion groups such as Slashdot included, and almost everybody that posts to certain USENET groups, and so forth... but it smacks of retribution.
It'd be nice if somebody asks Gore, Hillary (who, apparently, wishes to appear in favor of campaign-finance reform... yeah, whatever, Hillary), George the Younger, Dole, and McCain 'bout this move.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
It is a widely held populist belief that if we allow big money, then the rich will control everything. The proper ACLU-approved response to this is it doesn't matter, free speech is absolute and the proper rational response to this is it doesn't matter because it's not true.
The reason that free speech is important is that ideas are important and it's important to hear all sides and judge. Everybody gets to vote, rich or poor, nobody's taking that away. Yes, if unlimited free speech is allowed (yay!) then the rich will get more of it, but they already have more of it, campaign finance law has not and will never change that, and it's specious anyway because rich people come from all parts of the political spectrum too, from BarbAra Streisand to Charlton Heston. In fact, it is easier for the little guy, a dark horse candidate to convince a few rich people to support him/her than it is for that candidate to pound the pavement and fly all over the country raising peanuts here and there and ultimately getting nowhere. That's how George McGovern got in. It's only nowadays after we've had campaign spending limits lots of good candidates are complaining that they can't raise enough money.
When speech is controlled by the government, that's when you lose freedom. Campaign finance law is part-and-parcel of dictatorship, as is public financing. If we were to get public financing, do you think any current office holders or entrenched civil servants will not use it to their own advantage?
And, right back on topic, if you attempt to limit free speech/spending speech you are always going to get people figuring out how to get around it as we saw with PACs, soft money, private individuals running advocacy ads (banned) and private individuals setting up private websites (which has to be banned for the same reason).
The answer is simple: stop limiting free speech, whatever form it takes, and how ever much it costs.
Of course, I feel compelled to add, sometimes free-speech (in the form of campaign shindigs) does equal free-beer if you can wangle an invitation.
My PC was, um, pushing $1500 when I bought it a couple of years ago. I have recently seen better systems for sale at roughly $2-300. The hardware is probably worth (WAG) 150-200 now, less if I disconnect the monitor and the extra hardrive, both of which would be unnecessary on a web server. Running linux, the software would be free if I got it from an FTP server. So, assuming I wanted to support some cantidate exclusively with this machine, would I register as a $1500 contributing PAC, or Just Plain Dan w/ a POS old computer running free software?
Communication is only possible between equals
Ok, so no money exchanges hands there, it might be harder to argue in a court. But my web page now (nevermind my profile, I need to update it) is on a web server at a public university. I pay tuition and am the primary administrator of this machine -- I like to think of it as mine even though it really isn't. If I put that Nader site here, with all kinds of fun stuff like petitions and links and essays and endorsements and yadda yadda yadda, is someone supposed to pay then?
This is stupid. I can almost follow the FEC's logic: expensive equipment is being used. If you were to publish in a newspaper or run a radio or television broadcast ad, you would have to pay the publisher of that media for the space. In this case, you've already paid for it (via tuition & fees) but from a certain point of view it's the same thing.
But that's an insane point of view. Would it be better to pay by the percentage of clock cycles or disc space that goes to serving out the political page? Arguably, but it's a weak argument at best.
God I hope this doesn't stand up in court...
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
You think this is bad? Aside from the FEC's value added approach to campaign finance, more insidious still is Sen. McCain's proposed bill. It basically says that if I were to put up money to support one canidate or viewpoint, I must also put up and equal amount for the opposing viewpoint...now take into account the FEC's creative accounting and one can easily see where this becomes something more than just an exercise in stupidity. Say I post a page espousing some mainstream viewpoint (it matters not which one) and I post it to a server that I rent space on. Say it's a Sun E4000. Must I then put up funding for E4000's for the opposing viewpoint? And that's supposing there's only one!!!Thankfully, the odds of the measure passing are low. However, the bigger danger is that those voters who don't bother to think or read for themselves will become lulled into accepting such blatant abuses of Free Speech.do something about stupid voters. Vote.
Dojo: defanging browsers so you don't have to
But if anybody tries to HONESTLY AND OPENLY express their personal opinion, they automatically get a sizable bill through the mail.
Conclusion: It's better to infiltrate and pervert a voluntary organisation, and subliminally gain popularity, than be sincere or genuine.
Is there something wrong with this picture?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I'm running a 7 yr old 486DX1/33 Linux box with Apache. The hardware value is somewhere around $0.39 by todays market, and the software was free. The only cost is my time, and my employer doesn't seem to put a very high value on that, either!!
I have just one thing to say...
As Eric Cartman would say, "Dude, this is @#^&ing weak..."
Aaaaanyhow, this is just the sort of law you're supposed to ignore, eh? Sorta like those ones about not owning more than two cows and a pig, or not driving past a church on Sunday, etc. etc. etc...
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
I mean, you can't buy NT & a "server" for less than 1K . . .
All of the sudden, politicians will LOVE us!
...this is totally un-Constitutional BULLSHIT!!! If we ever decide to move back from the brink (or back up from OVER the brink) of a police state, we have to scrap ALL the federal laws and start over. If a bill does not meet STRICT observance of the Constitution, it does NOT become law. PERIOD. If only the founding fathers had listened (fully) to George Mason .
Whine whine whine! When life hands you lemons, as your mammy said, make a lemonade stand. It thus stands to reason that this rule is applicable to sections of Microsoft's website lobbying for certain changes at the Department of Justice. Doesn't this mean Microsoft is a PAC now? And let's tally up the cost of them thar NT-runnin Compaq Proliants! Ho ho ho, Bill G is gonna be out a whole 10 minutes' wages when I catch up to him! That's at least 23 hookers and a candy bar.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that campaign contributions are protected speech. Now they rule that protected speech is not speech at all, but rather a campaign contribution...
So money = speech, speech = money, but speech != speech? Hmm.
Well, at least the vision of the Founding Fathers is coming true. They only ever intended land-holding (i.e. wealthy) males to have any say in the governance of the country in the first place.
Ruby on Rails resources and more at idolhands.com
If I buy a $2,000 PC, and spend 50 hours/month playing Quake, and 2 hours/month writing opinionated rants on my webpage, couldn't I argue that the value of the "donation" is only $80?
Also, if your diatribes are not posted on sites that you are physically hosting, wouldn't your donation be what the ISP charges?
If I were this guy, I'd argue that since the site did many things besides the political ads, the amount of the "Donation" should be prorated using the amount of server space used for the ads. It is insane to work any other way. Otherwise, you have paradoxical situations wherein if I were to host two sites, one for each of two elections, I'd be "donating" twice as much money as I actually spent.
Hell, by this theory, Geocities has made one hell of a campaign donation!
The cake is a pie
See Citizens' Guide to Contributions and the Law, put out by the FEC.
If you advocate the election or defeat of a specific candidate, you may need to put up a notice, and report it to the FEC (if the value exeeds $1K), according to the section on "Independent Expenditures". However, it may perhaps be unlimited if it's *not* targetted at/for a specific candidate, and is independent of various organizations and political folks...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Whilst a heavily loaded server such as slashdot, or a main party web page costs a LOT to keep running, you can run a small-medium web page for very little these days.
;)
Just the cost for a domain name, and a little for the hosting.
If it were so expensive I dont think the porn pages would do so well
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
Tom Swiss would have you believe that he is qualified for the job. However
- He refuses to discuss the incident six years ago with the six feet of rubber tubing, the quart of motor oil, and the yak
- His policy towards Portugal is dangerous and misguided
- His views on Syrofoam are, at best, backward
- He led a violent protest after "Mama's Family" was taken off the air
- He refuses to clarify his position on rutabagas
- He once accepted a bribe from the National Association of Toothpick Manufacturers
This is your country. Don't vote for Tom Swiss.Thanks :)
--
If enough people scream about it, it will be changed, new regulations for internet advertising will be written, and we'll be able to move on to the next set of rules that have to be rewritten.
"After a series of conversations with the FEC, Smith was told, in
essence, that he was in violation of federal law because he had
spent more than $250 in expressing his political views without
disclosing his identity and filing the required reports with the
federal government.
"
Would the $250 limit still be imposed if Leo
had posted his name.
What about bumper stickers? If I put a pro whoever sticker, and my car costs over $1000 do I get a bill?
The article says he asked the FEC for an advisory ruling. The FEC doesn't seem to have known anything about him before that. Also, there's no mention of the FEC trying to enforce any kind of ruling. I suspect they would just as soon not waste time on him.
...from campaign finance harassment of free speech. This sort of thing has been happening in RL for years. Jesse Helmes got the FEC to go after an ACT-UP chapter that made disparaging comments about him, arguing their comments constituted an illegal campaign donation.
I also think mandatory disclosure is stupid. Ralph Nader had to bend over backwards to in 1996 to coordinate his trips so he didn't go over certain spending limits so he didn't have to disclose income and asset information. I think Nader's a hypocrite, but why should he have to disclose where he's getting his money from (and how much)?
Smith told the agency that he was not going to comply with its onerous regulations and refused to take down his website. Informed by an FEC attorney that he ran the risk of having legal action taken against him, Smith basically dared the agency to try. "I told them that I was definitely not going to take my site down, I was not going to file the reports and I was not going to post my name on the site," he said. "I told them that from a free speech standpoint, they were totally out of line."
I love this guy! He's my hero! Most people would have rolled over. This guy's telling them to come and get him.
I'm starting a website right now to try and get this guy on the 2000 presidential ticket. www.eat_sh*t_feds.org Does anyone know where I can get the PAC forms from the FEC?
Zigg is exactly right, and the important thing to keep in mind is that old
Nixon era maxim: "follow the money."
The FEC and the ACLU are made up of (prepare for a shock) LAWYERS!
Doing as Zigg suggests would eliminate jobs for (drum roll) LAWYERS!!
This would mean less loot, more competition, all sorts of "bad things" for
those who would control speech -- who happen to be LAWYERS!
The people who want to do as Zigg (and ok, I) suggest generally aren't,
we would benefit financially from fewer crappy rulings from _______
(fill in the blank). The only thing lacking on the other side is (ironically)
financial-disclosure-honesty like I just gave above. It's all about greed, I
admit it and they don't.
The people will again respect the law (and the lawyers) when the law
again respects the will of the people.
JMR
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
It seems to me that the common sensical notion that money spent on a political campaign does equal to volume of speech is pretty accurate. We can rant on /. for days and reach nowhere near as many people as Rupert Murdoch could and Ted Turner can. Or MS, or Phillip Morris. What that means is that when there are candidates and issues that fall on economic lines, the Voice that gets heard is the voice with money. The flip side is that publicly financing political campaigns (if you include all statements endorsing or detracting a candidate) means ultimately either limiting how many people can say what they want (effectively putting a price, or a limit on 'free' speech) or financing the world. That's a tight little dillema, quite appart from "it cost my parents thousands to raise me, so are my political conjectures made by a PAC?" type absurdities. The absurdity is an artifact of the paradox. The real problem is that the ACLU and the FEC are both taking (fair typically) bloody-minded stances. Neither is taking a complex or realistic stand involving resolving this dillema. Rather the one wants to pave over the foundation the other wants to build on. And the fact is that the whole thing is built in the unexplored swamps.
IP is just rude.
Is there any torture so subl
To avoid the current mess of campaign finance regulation and the 1st Ammendment, why not switch to a full-disclosure system? Candidates are free to take money in any quantity from anyone (which satisfies the free-speech concern) but are required to provide it to some group (the FEC or another government agency, news media consortium, etc) which will maintain the information in a public format.
So, China can buy the presidency. Big companies can buy Congressmen and Senators.
BUT, if I say "Vote for Skippy Dolittle" on my web page I am "subverting the political process."
This case is ridiculous. However, campaign finance issues do need to be addressed. There should be restrictions on contributions. Lobbying (of all kinds) is arguably a form of free speach. Though there are clearly huge abuses that simply can't be allowed. Its not just fortune 500 companies either, its unions, interest groups, and many others.
I basically feel that the greater good would be to disallow active advertisements. eg: TV ads, magazine ads, banner ads, etc. They tend not to be informative, and resort to scare mongering, and mud slinging.
"Passive" ads on the other hand would be allowed. eg: Web pages comparing and contrasting the candidates. The Federal government should provide a web site, call it election.gov. Which would basically provide the forum for each candidate and interest group to speak their minds, and distribute meaningful information. Hopefully, it would be conducive to constructive and intelligent criticism,
I know it wouldn't make it absolutely equitable, but that is not my primary concern here. I don't think we can, as a country, afford to have our promulgators and policy makers to be enticed by financial considerations given by various lobbies.
...anyways, i'm out of time. hasta
Check out this article about the George W. Bush campaign sending the FEC after someone:p lay/0,2168,m6628,00.html?special
http://www.thestandard.com/articles/special/dis
Does the FEC also count the value of a car that is attached to a political bumpersticker?
Lucky for me that my website runs Redhat, Apache on a free machine on a free net connection!
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
- Candidate A gets several huge contributions from large conglomerates; these contributions are fully disclosed. Candidate A spends a lot of his time campaigning with ordinary people to get votes.
- Candidate B has to get thousands of small contributions; these contributions are also fully disclosed. Candidate B spends a lot of his time campaigning at $1000/plate fundraisers to make money to support a campaign.
Now which system is more corrupt?My Blog. Sela Ward can sell me long distanc
I don't like to have to deal with government BS anymore than anybody else. However, this guy's speech is not being impacted other than he has to explain who he is in a very limited way. The same
rule applies to people who post signage or take out ads in traditional media--the committee who sponsors the message needs to make their identity known to the general public.
The internet is different in that any yoyo with a website can rant and rave without expending a penny. Practically speaking, this will make political campaigning on the internet by non-candidates unmanageable by the FEC or anybody else. That's a good thing. What would be great is if candidates were to start cultivating idealists on the net for media instead of cultivating folks with money to burn so that they can place their ads. While politicians tend to feather their nests and often end up in cushy positions after a successful career in public service, they don't raise money for its own sake.
They raise money to afford media to promulgate
their message. We don't live in a society where
the citizenry tends to show up at town hall
meetings and votes for who will best seem to represent the community. We do live in a society where those of us who vote tend to never get involved with candidates directly. Instead, we get nauseated by the various candidates via watching their ads on TV and try to choose the least disgusting.
I built a website for a congressional candidate in '98 as well as did some computer stuff in their office on a voluntary basis (and donated a modem).
I had to file with the FEC to the tune of $600 or so. It was silly, but the campaign people didn't want to get into trouble. My rights weren't violated.
That would work if we lived in a society that actually cared. Imagine if some good old billionaire decided to "buy a puppet", how many people do you think would not vote for the puppet solely because he got a billion dollars? You can disclose it all, but nobody seems to really care all that much.
There has to be some regulations... (for an extreme example) let's say that billionaire put up a website with multiple T3's, a couple of Sun E10k clustered, etc. costing millions of dollars hired 5 webmasters, etc. and all he had to do was put a little disclosure notice on the bottom... that would put more than a few people out of the running.
I wish I could say that I have an answer, or that there is even an answer out there. When you try to protect the small guy, the big guys abuse it, you try to protect it from the big guys, the small guys get lost in the shuffle; until someone trys to use the law in a way that it wasn't meant to be and the little guy gets walked on.
The reason why public financing might be the only way to go, if we can ever figure out how to make it work, since you have the problem of determining who is a "valid" enough candidate to receive the money, is because the Supreme Court keeps saying that money equals speech, which means a First Amendment problem comes up when we try to restrict or ban the flow of money into political party hands.
Personally, let's just not allow people to ever personally have enough money to ever be able to buy more electoral power than anyone else. ;)
I agree absolutely. Let everyone contribute as much as they want. There are thousands of people who contribute one dollar for everyone that contributes one thousand dollars. And there are thousands of them for every one that could contribute one million.
But I would add one other requirement: contributions from eligible voters only. Not only would this eliminate the foreign funding scandals that are arisen in the US, but it would also eliminate corporate funding of campaigns. If the CEO of MegaCorp wants to support George Dubya, then it should be his money/stocks, and not that of the shareholders. Ditto for the unions.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Hypothetically an agency of a govenrnment that may or may not be ours intended to regulate alleged abuses of it's electorial process. It might appear that this postulated entity (I am not naming names here) and the administration behind it (hypothetically again- could be anywhere) are again doing what they do best.
They (whoever they are) are not necessarilly dealing with really powerful entities that threaten to undermine the democratic process; for argument's sake lets say a communist nation doling out pac money, and "soft" money contributions from the already rich and powerful that contribute to both parties and claim they have no control over legislation.
Instead they bring the full force of law on mostly harmless and ineffectual backwoods hate-mongers no one would listen to anyway just so they look like they are doing a job. Throw in a few cyber-bores ranting as self stylized spin-doctors that are only preach to their own choir for good measure, and some rickety ol ministers urging the vote on a rather beaten to death Pro-life issue and now they are really looking like they have a "mission" to justify their budget.
It is obvious that Larry Flint has accomplished more investigation than the organization (with less money) that could be called the FEC (but I am not saying it is). If this is the best violations of election proceedure they can come up with it is clear that their charges will never hold in court, and I wouldn't want to be them around budget time if another (hypothetical) party takes office.
Any resembleance the above hypothetical agency, admistration, or government has to any real agency, administration, or government is purely coincidental and the author disavows any relationship of such with the full knowledge that Big Brother is watching.
>Bart Simpson- "I didn't do it...It wasn't me"
Heh.
It's a joke, not a serious question.
The NRA is opposed to most of the liberties that the ACLU fights for (freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the rights of the accused, etc.) -- and the ACLU doesn't give a rat's ass about guns per se.
Fine: "Between the two of them, they lick the platter clean".
Don't knock it.
Furthermore, the NRA is one of the most powerful lobbying organizations on the face of the Earth. Do they really need help from the ACLU? I doubt it. Nevertheless, we both know damn well (or should I say, "everybody not blinded by right-wing propaganda knows damn well") that if the NRA ran crying to the ACLU with a good juicy test case, the ACLU might very well take it and run with it -- just as they have gone to the mat to defend the Constitutional rights of Christians, Nazis, and everybody else under the sun. Personally I think it would be a pointless waste of money for the ACLU to fight a case for a group as wealthy and powerful as the NRA -- a group which can afford to conduct its own litigation just fine -- but hey, who am I to be critical?
But if I spend $1000 on computer equipment, I still have the equipment. I didn't give it away and I didn't lose the equipment after the campaign was over. So how the hell can that be considered a donation?
It also ignores the fact that the computer is not necesserily being used exclusively for this purpose and no other. If I had a home business and used my home PC to run it, but also used it for games, I would only be able to declare a percentage of the PC's cost as a business expense rather than the entire cost. Why is this any different? Is that computer doing nothing but running this one political website?
If I drive my car to a political rally, and my car cost me $18,000, does that mean I have donated $18,000 to the campaign? Of course not. I only used a teeny tiny percentage of the car's lifespan to drive to the rally. And if a webpage is up on a good OS, it will only amount to a teeny tiny percentage of that computer's time and money.
The people who came up with this ruling are technical illeterates who know nothing about computers or how the 'net works. They have no idea that a webserver does not take up the majority of the computer's time unless its a really slow computer or a really busy website.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Rules can always be manipulated.
So far it's only in the discussion stages, but the FEC's rules on independent TV spots is ripe for abuse. The scheme goes like this: Assume that you are trying to defeat the Hon. Cross Palmer. You register as a PAC and place ads showing archive footage of Rep. Palmer at his stupidest, along with double-meaning captioning written by a really good satirist. The upshot is that the Palmer not only becomes a public laughingstock, but YOUR budget gets charged against HIS spending limits.
It's the TV equivalent of a Joe-job. The same tactic works even better on the Net. You register as a PAC and put up a page on Geocities with the Best of Palmer done in slack-stick and then report to the FEC listing the Geocities server farm as a contribution. Now multiply by the thousands of people who think that the public has been serviced enough by Palmer.
MUCH more practical and cost-efficient than television. But then we knew that, didn't we?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
The day after all campaign financing goes out the window, Bill Gates chooses the next president. You thought George W. Bush's fundraising was incredible? Just wait until any bored billionaire can dump 100 times the current funding amounts on whoever he wants to get into office.
Are campain contributions Tax Deductible (considering who's writing tax laws, I would think they were)
Does that mean we could deduct the cost of our servers/ect if we put up some political views?
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
This is ridiculous.
Big corporations get away with giving I don't know how much money (practically bought the last Prez Election) in "Soft Money" and legally doesn't have to report it as a campaign contribution. But Joe User puts up a political web site as a hobby, and gets assessed for their whole computer?????
The lesson here boys and girls is that if you are a big corporation with billions of dollars you don't have to play by the rules, donate millions to both the Republican and the Democrat canidates and you got yourself the best government money can buy!
This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you
Amen to that! If you can't vote, you shouldn't fund. And a conviction of monopoly tactics should be counted as a felony that strips voting and funding rights
Whoa! Did you even read the story? For the record, this was an example of the ACLU getting behind the little guy vs. big bad government overregulation. Which, actually, is pretty typical for them.
I'm certainly not always on the side of the ACLU, but this rhetoric is just bizarre. Care to provide any examples to back up your reasoning? (or rather, your refusal to use reason: anything they're against is okay by me.)
PS Get your paranoid rhetoric right! Stormtroopers are fascist, not socialist.
Wow, I wouldn't have the balls to admit on Slashdot that I favor forcing telcos to build wiretapping-friendly systems, imposing state-approved religions on publically-funded facilities, and the FBI's handling of Waco.
How do you propose a system like this, and in the same breath remove the federal agency that would implement your regulations? Sounds like you want to have it both ways.
Your idea of restricting donations by organizations strikes me as being non-democratic. Organizations are the way that equal citizens band together to get their point across. Restricting them from donating as a group is a serious restriction of their rights.
"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin,
DEFEND YOUR NATION AND YOUR FREEDOM BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
:-)
:-)
Not too bad
I have to admit, though, I laughed more at your earlier post about how the Democratic party is illegal. However, the one before that calling women and minorities "rank incompetents" (in response to the Geek Girl Satellite) takes First Prize.
Very entertaining, keep 'em coming
Perhaps we should collectively let the FEC know what our community thinks of their decision.
A fax number for them is (202-501-3413), other numbers are listed here: http://www.fec.gov/1996/offices.htm#anchor560369
BTW, if the story popps up on www.wired.com you can fax it from your web browser.
Hummmm, I wounder how many times the auto-fax thingie tries to call a non-fax number before giving up?
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Should campaign volunteers' time be counted as contributions if the "fair market" value of the time exceeds the cap? (Sorry, Chris, but if you help us at this rally, it'll cost the campaign too much...)
Just another case where you add in the word "internet" and all of a sudden everyone thinks they have to get involved. Oh my God! Do you realize that with the INTERNET, anyone could be politically active without reporting to us?!?!?!
Excuse me while I throw up...
--
That's an elegant solution! Nice!
You make an excellent point. It is high time these people started getting more informed counsel.
A better way, if they must have something, might be to take into consideration the revenues of a site that runs an endorsement, especially advertising revenues. The true value of an endorsement is bound up with who is doing the endorsing and how big their audience is, not how much the equipment cost (what if they used the same rule for radio advertisements!?!). There is a direct relationship between the size of a site's audience and their [advertising] revenues. Thus, the value of the "donation" should be assesed by how much the site would charge a third party for an endorsement of similiar size/content.
If an endorsement is placed on Joe Hackestoop's Personal Home Page, it can and should be ignored by the government, regardless of what hardware he is running. However, if amazon.com or E*Trade placed endorsements for candidates on their sites, I should think those endorsements would be very valuable to their candidates and should be accounted for. The problem is not that the FEC wants to get a handle on this somehow, but the way they are doing it.
The flip side of this is that most commercial sites would never run endorsements on their pages for fear of alienating customers.
JAD
Think about this. Thousands of charity and non-profit organizations go scraping for money to feed the homeless, help orphans, teach kids, you name it. Yet our country's citizenry spends MILLIONS each year donating to POLITICS and politicians instead.
Is anyone else seriously bothered by this?
Why does it need to cost, on average, close to a million dollars to become a US Rep? Close to 5 million to become a Senator? And for President? Bush has over $60 million, and we're still more than a year from the election! Don't we think this money could have better uses? And the advantage still always goes to the incumbent!
I'm not sure how I feel about public funding of all elections. It's different, but it may be a solution. I'd be interested to hear other ideas about how to remove these utterly ridiculous price tags to elected positions.
You can posture all you want on free speech and contributions. I say that as soon as you put a requirement that a candidate fund raise, you corrupt the process. The interests of the poor and the rich are not equivalent, hence the advantage always goes to the rich (or at least those who donate). That's fine in business, but what is the best candidate for creating the laws of our land should not have price tags attached to it.
Somedays it's just not worth chewing through the restraints...
Except when it comes to the right to bear arms.
Then the ACLU is frequently supporting those who are trying to get rid of freedom. The ACLU is extremely hypocritical in their support of only some freedoms and their opposition of other freedoms.
This is why the ACLU has no credibility with me; YMMV.
Well, if that counts as a political contribution, I guess that I can deduct the first hundred on my 1040!
I think I can engineer 100 dollars worth of "political views" as a side bar on my web page. =)
Pax -- Ob
*Anybody* can give soft money without having to report it as a campaign contribution.
The reason the FEC is going after this web site is because it endorsed a specific candidate. If a corporation put on its web site, "Vote for candidate Y" that would be considered a campaign donation. Actually if a corporation mentioned in its internal newsletter who it thought employees should vote for, that would also count as a donation.
A lot of groups and nonprofit organizations simply don't include "please vote for candidate X" in their newsletters because the hassles are too great. This was what happened to the Christian Coalition -- you come too close to saying "we would prefer candidate Y" and you get in a lot of trouble (the CC and unions have both gotten into trouble for producing voter guides that the FEC thought were too politicized).
"Think about this. Thousands of charity and non-profit organizations go scraping for money to feed the homeless, help orphans, teach kids, you name it. Yet our country's citizenry spends MILLIONS each year donating to POLITICS and politicians instead."
Since you're saying this I'm assuming that you know the amount donated to charities vs. the amount spent on campaigns (obviously nobody posting to Slashdot would think of posting something completely unsubstantiated). I would like to know just how much more is contributed to political campaigns vs. charitable organizations.
Thank you.
I'd like to mention just how these regulatory agencies work: He didn't send an e-mail or go down to the local FEC office and ask one of the people for their opinion over a cup of coffee. Instead Leo Smith probabally got a phone call or an e-mail from the Federal Elections Comission and asked him to start filling out the required paperwork.
As part of the appeal process he demanded a formal written opinion from the FEC, which is one of the first steps they are required to do before any legal action can take place. This process is the same if you are disputing something from the IRS, NSA, FCC, or any other federal agency. The advisory opinion is taken as the official position of the FEC on the matter and is treated similarly (although not exactly) to an opinion written by a federal judge, or at least a legal briefing by a procesuting attorney.
The fact that the FEC would even write such an opinion indicates that they take the issue seriously and are in the process of of trying to enforce what they percieve as violations of US Elections Laws. They even specify the exact laws they feel are being broken and are threating legal action.
Specifically, the FEC said "Should the activity qualify as an independent expenditure, you would be required to file reports with the Commission if the total value of your expenditures exceeds $250 during 1998. 2 U.S.C. 431(17), 434(c), 441a(a)(7)(B); 11 CFR 109.1, 109.2. In contrast, if your activity were not conducted completely independent of the Koskoff campaign, your expenditures would be reportable by the Koskoff Committee as an in-kind contribution from you. 2 U.S.C. 431(8)(A)(i), 434(b)(2)(A), 434(b)(3)(A); 11 CFR 104.3(a)(3)(i), 104.3(a)(4)(i), 104.13. 10"
I think that is pretty specific and shows they mean business.
a true anarchist would not trumpet herself as an anarchist, and certainly would not put up an 'anarchist faq'. FAQs are seething with control and authority. some people say 'well a FAQ has a good purpose and you can always e-mail the maintainer, who is a reasonable person and would not put anything silly in the faq and is glad to take suggestions and improvements. besides they are my good buddy.' but that is the same thing that people say about dictator led governments too.
a true anarchist would not trumpet herself as an anarchist, and certainly would not put up an 'anarchist faq'. FAQs are seething with control and authority. some people say 'well a FAQ has a good purpose and you can always e-mail the maintainer, who is a reasonable person and would not put anything silly in the faq and is glad to take suggestions and improvements. besides they are my good buddy.' but that is the same thing that people say about dictator led governments too. oh screw it
the power consumption alone of 15 486 boxes probably costs more than a single pentium. anyways, the cost of internet connections far outweighs the cost of any hardware or software.
You all don't understand the true purpose of the fec. It is not to make sure that elections are fairly financed. Its purpose is to make sure that the two major political parties never have any serious opposition. The only way to do an end run around this restriction is to be a rich person. Then you can spend your own money on the campaign. However the original laws on campaign finance reform limited the personal funds that an individual could spend on his campaign. The supreme court found this unconstitutional. If this ruling had not occured, the Ross Perot phenomona of 92 and 96 wouldn't have happened. Basically "campaign finance reform" = "Incumbent protection act"
This is a classic case of the ACLU and some hyper-active first-amendment activists blowing things out of proportion and slanting the facts to suit their purposes.
I actually went to the FEC's web site and citizen's guide (http://www.fec.gov/pages/citnlist.htm) for some information before posting this reply and learned some interesting things.
First, volunteering does not make someone a PAC as some people have immediately starting yammering on about. From the site:
Further, what the article is talking about when you personally make a web page about a campaign is called "Independent Expenditures" -- meaning that you are doing it as an individual and independently, not linked in with some candidate campaign. Again, from the site:
There are a couple of relevant caveats in that. First, you have to say that you are independent. Second, if you spend over $250, you have to file a form. This DOES NOT mean your free speech is being restricted. All it means is that the goverment is requiring you to register how much you spent on your speech. Why? So that political campaigns can't get around federal law by pretending to have lots of independent contributions.
You can download the form from the web site. It's about a page long. Name, address, how much you spent. Not much more than that.
Finally, I personally think it would be hard to say that a page on your website with a political message should be "calculated" as the cost of the machine, web-space, etc., as the marginal cost of adding a page to an existing site is essentially zero. If you had a dedicated machine, they'd have a better case.
In any case, people should go looking for the facts (since they're in plain sight) before overreacting to whatever FUD people want to use /. to spread.
-XDG
I rather doubt this would stand a first ammendment challenge.
I think the ACLU's point is that even the "reasonable" cases shouldn't stand a challenge. Once you grant that money==speech, any limits on campaign contributions become constitutionally suspect. And the mere facts of this case point out how arbitrary these limits are (how, exactly, do you count the money?)
I'm all for the ACLU's ultimate solution here. Candidates need lots of money to run a campaign, and this opens them up to purchase by moneyed interests (read: whoring to industry). Public financing would involve some thorny issues, but it sure sounds a hell of a lot better than what we have now.
I'm aware that the line between censorship and freedom is a fine line. My concern here is not people expressing their opinion, it is monies and similar contributions being given in return for actions on the part of our various legislators.
Put it this way, if you owned a company, would you allow your vendors to give money and other favors to whichever employee is in charge of purchasing and acquisitions? Absolutely not. You can't just say, "oh they can accept goods, but they can't show any consideration." That just isn't practical to enforce. You have to draw the line and simply say, No.
Yet, every day both republicans and democrats alike moonlight with various lobbies. It has only gotten worse and worse since Clinton has been elected (despite claims to the contrary).
One notorious company which is known for its lobbying is ADM. They've created whole industries for themselves with effective lobbying. For example, the sugar tariffs. Its in the name of protectionism, to protect domestic sugar growers from foreign competition. The unadvertised side effect is that domestic sugar remains 3-4x higher (if memory serves) than foreign sugar. So guess what, many sugar consuming companies turn to cheaper alternatives. Guess who just happens to own most of the corn syrup production? You guessed it, ADM. We're talking billions upon billions of dollars?
There are many examples like these. The fact of the matter is that you're never going to be able to prosecute either party no matter how illegal you make consideration. There are always going to be loop holes. The money is going to end up in campaign coffers no matter what is done.
You have to ask yourself, what is worse? Creating a universal law which evens the playing field for all politicians, thus making such campaign contributions worthless, and as a side effect killing a certain area of free speach, but doing so in a consistent and fair manner. Or accepting the status quo: failed attempts at regulation and continued aggressive lobbying, causing inequitable spending, law making, and policy making.
I don't think the answer is black and white. But i'm not inclined to run in fear just because it happens to put a clamp on a small area of speach. This is not the first time that speach, as defined in the constitution, has been restricted. You're not allowed to yell fire in a theater. You're not allowed to liabel. Commercial advertisements are constantly restricted. Television and radio content is censored by the FCC for nudity and language. Some of these shouldn't exist. But others are simply necessary.
Until I see a perfect answer, I will continue to consider such methods. If you have a better idea, please do tell.
PS: Pulling apart words (snip snip), and paraphrasing (putting words in my mouth) are not appreciated. There are other ways more polite ways to discuss disagreements without being so catty. Particularly on a forum such as this, where exact syntax, and other such considerations play a small role. Its not witty, and its most certainly not informative (particularly in this case). It may be your prerogative, but a little etiquette goes a long way. Thanks...
Must be some use t\of the word "insightful" I'm not familiar with, cause last I checked, it doesnt take much insight to regurgitate the Libertatrian party line. It takes some guts, and perhaps (IMO) a lack of sanity, but not insight.
Suggestion to moderator: Judge objectively, based on how informative or well thought out posts are, not whether you agree with them.
or you could just cover your tracks and give me a [-1, offtopic]
wisconsin does not exist.
I am a web developer by trade, and more politically-active/conscious than most by patriotic duty.
I generally agree with the ACLU on civil liberties, except on their contention that "money == speech." (Briefly, money has transitive, permanent worth, and is unevenly distributed among citizens - speech does not have the same transitive, permanent worth, and is a basic right to all citizens.) Obviously, I think they're smoking crack in this instance, and thus I actively support McCain-Feingold with long-winded posts such as these, among my other patriotic efforts.
That being said, I followed the link from ACLU to the copy of the letter the FEC sent to Smith. It has got to be one of the most asinine "rulings" I've seen since Antonin Scalia last rendered a majority opinion.
First, when Mr. Smith cites a Supreme Court decision on an Ohio statute as argument for his position, the FEC felt that Even though the argument at hand was the Supreme Court decision, and not just the Ohio law, the FEC's mood toward interpreting law swung at the end of their letter, where they cite AND THEN INTERPRET for Mr. Smith the Buckley opinion.
In a nutshell, the FEC claims that the Buckley opinion claims that every act of speech has a documentable expense, and thus supports their requirement that Mr. Smith register and report expenses.
Never mind that:
- Buckley also says petitioners in Colorado don't have to identify themselves with name badges, which would seem to dovetail with Smith's right as a virtual petitioner for the Dems in Connecticut not to have to identify himself with an HTML name badge, contrary to the FEC;
- The examples itemized in Buckley seem to ignore the existence of the World Wide Web, where most of us could contend that it costs virtually nothing but volunteer time to add two more pages to a web that WAS ALREADY SERVING a non-political purpose, much like driving a paid-for car to a political meeting would not cost anything but gas, or like saying two political sentences in a conversation would require nothing but air;
This is why I'm considering law school, BTW; I geek for this stuff, and I'm already much better at it than Scott E. Thomas, Acting (and soon to be former, if there is a brain among the Administration) Chairman of the FEC._____
_____
The antidote to bad speech is not censorship, but more speech.
Sorry, but the reason the FEC exists is that elections are bought and sold in this country--a candidate with little money stands little chance against a well-monied one. Not that I think the FEC has fixed a darn thing. The problem is much deeper.
I think it's time we reexamined "Freedom of Speech" as presently interpreted in the USA. Take local elections for example--most candidates and races are so forgettable FOR MOST FOLKS (generalization) that elections are won by BRAND RECOGNITION--by littering our roadsides with those stupid little signs. Yes, maybe you are a good citizen and you know who stands where on what issues. But a HUGE block of voters will remember only the name that they've been spammed with the most. "Oh, I recognize this guy!" But the real issue is, what kind of TRUTH do WE THE PEOPLE get from a message delivered only for selfish purposes?
Another example: sporting events. As an avid hockey fan, I've watched with horror as Corporate America continues to increase it's consciousness-spamming assault on me. Stadiums are no longer named for anything of cultural value. Sports broadcasting has increased its average Consumer-Product-Message-Per-Minute rate a hundred-fold in the last 15 years. And where has it gotten us? Ungrateful jocks throwing childish tantrums while raking in my life's earnings. Yet even with such extravagant salaries, the advertisers profit by spamming (brainwashing) American consumeroids into purchasing their products.
As you may have guessed, I'm fairly hostile towards advertising. That's because it's mostly BS. Yet, even though VISA is NOT everywhere I want to be, and does not in fact have a damn thing to do with where I want to be (at home, eating dinner), they cite the First Amendment as their right to tell me otherwise.
The First Amendment was authored in order to enable PEOPLE to present and discuss ideas. But should it protect disingenous messages, packaged with today's most fantastic technology? Should it protect spam? Should it protect consciousness-spamming?
Slashdot: Liberal News for Nerds. Liberal Stuff that Matters.
The ACLU post is somewhat slanted and gives the advisory a negative spin. If you read the advisory, the FEC says that the valuation needs to consider part of the cost of running computer and website towards the $250 limit.
In this case, the guy running the website needs to determine what part of his costs the advocacy website took up. Then if these costs exceed $250, he needs to register.
The Commission notes that there are minimal costs associated with creating the web site. Some portion of the previous expenses described in your request could be apportioned to each and every web site that you construct as part of your business. These overhead costs would include, for example, the fee to secure the registration of domain name, the amounts you invested in your hardware, and the utility costs to create the site.
Here the FEC seems to indicate that costs for just running the website needs to be considered. For example, if the DNS registration takes 35 a year, then cost needs to be divided by the number of separate DNS names he is using and then the cost for just the names he is using for the website needs to be considered. Also in valuating the cost of the website Leo just needs to consider the cost it took to prepare the site excluding his contribution in time(e.g. if he had to pay x dollars for the rights to use the images on the web site, he needs to include these x dollars in the valuation).
But that wasn't enough for the FEC. In an advisory opinion issued at Smith's request, the FEC said that it determines the value of web sites by counting, among other factors, the cost of the computer hardware and software used to create the site. If the computer cost more than $250, the FEC said, its owner would have to meet the filing and disclosure requirements of federal law.
The ACLU's characterization of the FEC ruling makes it harsher then it seems. If the computer cost over 1000, then the full cost of the computer only needs to be consider if all you do is run the political website on the computer. If all you do is create the website and set it up on a free homepage then you would need to file only if getting the images and processing them cost over $250. Also the FEC advisory seems to have been stricter since Leo was solicting donations for a candiate.
The ACLU seems to have made the ruling more ominous and threatening then it really is in order to drum up support and contributions. However IANAL so I may have interpeted the FEC advisory incorrectly.
"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
It may go a long way. But unless those thousand people pool their interests, its most likely going to be a rag-tag distribution of money. Whereas the billionare or pooled interest (pre-funded) is decisive. They can, and do, allocate it all to one particularly promising campaign. Given a reasonably equal number of dollars, this will be far more effective. E pluribus Unum...Out of many one.
However, that being said, I think corporate speech (lobbying) has a place, though it is much abused. Innocent (and not so innocent) actions by the ignorant masses and politicians can cripple perfectly legitimate industries in a matter of days.
Is the immediate desire of the voting population, to outweigh their long term economic interests and the interests of the company (shareholders, employees, bondholders, management, etc)? Perhaps companies should be given the same right to contribute that voters are (they are already basically viewed an an individual legally). The question is, how do you weight it, and who decides what is equitable. Its a tough call.
The ACLU has there own very bizarre definition of liberty (which includes wonderful things like public housing and the right to prevent homeschooling), and they're willing to do anything to promote that agenda (at least in the short run). This includes misinterpretting the Constitution to give the Supreme Court supreme power, Seperation of Powers and Democracy be Damned.
I certainly didn't see anything about division of power the last time I looked at their site--the Supreme Court supports them in the short term, so they're all in favor of the Supreme Court's absoulute power. You'd think they'd realize the Supreme Court isn't likely to support their views for all eternity--Oh well.
Are you a public educator? I've noticed a lot of them subscribe to the "assignation of homework as an argumentative defense mechanism" school of debate, as well. Anyway, here's it right back at you: Read it again.
Now for your test questions:
- Would you agree or disagree that US politicians collectively receive more than $2 million dollars in campaign contributions?
- Would you agree or disagree that at least 2000 charities and non-profit organizations survive on subsistence budgets or less (i.e., "go scraping for money")?
The answer to the first question is an obvious Yes.The answer to the second question is a little tougher, but here's some help: The US Census Bureau (as reported by CNN) estimates that some 12 to 16% of Americans are living below the poverty level, i.e., earning less than $16,000 a year. Since charities and other non-profits are in large part set up to help the poor and disenfranchised, how successful would you suspect they are at eradicating poverty?
Thank you.
_____
_____
The antidote to bad speech is not censorship, but more speech.
The FEC comes off sounding very fascistic. They hope that a few high-profile prosecutions of "miscreants" will get their message across.
For another example of the Clinton Administration's anti-free-speech attitude, see this link.
Summary: companies (and individuals?) defending themselves in public against government accusations may be charged with civil racketeering if Big Brother decides the advertising/research/etc is "untrue". Do we want the folks who don't know what the definition of "is" is to fine or throw people in jail for defending themselves?
Thanks. I will spend many hours there. Especially liked the article rating the presidents.
So what, instead of being allowed to filter what you can can't see we should have big brother tell us what's acceptable? What you regard as spam someone else might regard as a valuable source of offers and sponsorship. Don't offer to protect me from the big bad world. Websites are a passive source of information that should be used a lot more often than blatent mass appeals. Perhaps you should spend your time informing companies that setting up a website that is detailed and choicked full of information is more effective and cheaper than just spraying the world with your logo. If a billboard and a website cost the same, what will they pick?
Just when I thought the ACLU was on target for a change, they went and proposed public financing of campaigns. For those of you in Rio Linda, public financing means that you are forced to support candidates you find offensive. This brilliant idea comes to you from those very same people whose underwear gets all wound up at the thought of a public nickel going to support any religious idea. Do you want to finance Nazis? Well, sorry, but I don't, and I'll fight for my right not to be forced to do so by the ACLU or anybody else. You should too, if you have any Kohones.
Money is not speech. Speech is not money. That's why we use different words for speech and money. When people attempt to use money as speech, we have words for that too: bribery, corruption, influence-peddling.
Money can be more usefully compared to paper and ink, or the carrier wave of a modem; it may help speech travel farther, but the actual content of a pure-money message is nil, just as you will get no information from a bottle of ink sitting on a blank piece of paper. Compare this to the power of an idea; money is not required to spread it, people will do it for nothing (the obvious example: Linux), although money may flock around it after the fact.
Of course you may have a different opinion. If you give me a dollar, I'll listen.
seetuckeratpacbelldotnet
My glass house is more expensive than your glass house.
This may change the "platform" I run my :-)
web server on...
... or at least when they were both on the same side of the issue.
It's civil forfeiture... take a look at this page on the F.E.A.R. Foundation's website, where you'll find:
Strange bedfellows, anyone?For those of you not in the know that's the: BLOW IT OUT YER ASS PARTY!
They're like pretty cool and stuff.
It is a widely held populist belief that if we allow big money, then the rich will control everything.
Straw man. The belief worth defending is that if we allow the amount and effectiveness of speech to be proportional to wealth, then the rich will control more than they should be entitled to.
The burden of proof, it seems to me, is on someone who opposes that belief, holding e.g. that wealth should automatically confer entitlement to have one's speech more effectively heard. I guess you think that, but you don't give a reason for it; you only say it doesn't matter if it does, because "rich people come from all parts of the political spectrum", which is doubtful at best. What is certainly true is that rich people come from all parts of the political spectrum that is commonly represented, but that's just a consequence of the current arrangement in which wealth DOES confer the right to more effective speech.
I mean, look, if wealth is so irrelevant in the shaping of political discourse and electoral decisionmaking, why do viable candidates in the US now have to acquire so damn much of it? And why do you think this situation can't be changed for the better?
--Seen
"I used to be a dilettante. Then I thought I'd try something else for a while."
then the rich will control more than they should be entitled to. How is that more than they are entitled to? didn't they earn the right in america to spend their money any way they wish? and should they choose to effect political change with their lifes equity (money), who are you to stop them? What gives you the right to stop people from putting their money where their mouth is. Would you be the person to regulate the decibel level of people that shout so that people with emphyzema could "speak on a level playing field?" Money is as much a part of speech as microphones, cables, amplifiers and speakers. To somehow governmentally regulate equal distribution of these things is stupid. Is Alec Baldwin giving money to a candidate somehow more just than Scaife?
Look. Money Is speech. If you want to be heard by 50 people you shout at the top of your lungs. If you want to be heard by 500 you use a PA system with microphones and speakers. If you want to be heard by 50,000, you use Television appearances and campaign spots. Since it takes more than 50,000 votes to do anything on a national level (even a state level), you have to reach a LOT more people. TV ads, PA systems, flyers don't come for free. Just as sure as you have to have a message, you have to ensure that you are heard; noone mumbles a marriage proposal. You don't have speech without those 2 things. To be heard by millions of people it takes millions of dollars. Facts of life.
Yeah, and damn Bakunin and Proudhon straight to hell for ever even *considering* writing books about anarchism. I mean, anarchism just happens, right? People aren't supposed to think or plan, they're just supposed to go straight to smashing the state and capitalism without ever understanding the impetus of the situation, or how to help progress and structure society following the revolution, right?
Whatever. You obviously have listened to too much psuedo-anarchist punk music.
Understand the history of free socialism, and call yourself an anarchist if that's what you believe in. How in the world would the anarchist movement progress if no "true anarchist" proclaimed themselves to be one?
Your rhetoric reeks of ignorance. Please help out at a Food Not Bombs or organise your workplace into a radical union. Otherwise, stop wasting your time labelling those of us actually involved in the movement as "posers". Thank you.
Michael Chisari
It would be interesting to see what would happen if somebody from outside the US tried to contribute with a website. Would that count as an illegal campaign contribution?
I would not be suprised, because apparently Al Gore invented the internet and the US government owns all of it, or something.
-S
We were told that killing the equal time rule would give us more and better political discussions. Yeah. I've seen mud slinging and rapidly escalating campaign expenses instead. Bring back the equal time rule, and we'll get some moderation back again, without having troublesome first amendment issues complicating an already difficult problem.
When Russia was setting up for its first real elections, I read we were sending campaign consultants to help their candidates out. Am I the only one who suspected that simply nuking them would have been kinder? At least radioactivity has a known half-life.
no critical responses yes there were to this kneejerk apologist for America-as-it-is you are a knee-jerk anti-American. Sure, I was acting as an apologist for those patriotic citizens all across our spectrum, who dig into their own pockets and contribute money to promote the political discourse in the tradition of Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton. OK? don't bother to criticize that, I admit it was way over the top. Just admit that your screed was over the top in the other direction and we'll both move on to the meat of the discussion.
Well, well, well, not only do you know the noun "straw man", you know how to erect one. I have no idea if the burden of proof rests on that guy, but I do know that it wasn't my argument. Quit reading between the lines and just read the lines:It is obvious that wealth confers advantages in having one's speech heard. It is also obvious that "freedom" (as in "leaving people to act as they wish") is a good thing. So, the question is, do the advantages that the rich have in the speech department make it worth revoking their freedom? I say "no", and I think that the burden of proof is on those who say that we should.
I didn't say that wealth was inherently irrelevant in the shaping of political discourse, I say that it is effectively irrelevant in the resulting shape because experience shows that there are destitute wackos all over the political spectrum, and wealthy ones, and a lot more people in the middle of wealth, sanity, and political viewpoint. So, since we can't a priori find a bias, do we find one in practice? Call me an apologist, but I think all viewpoints in America are being heard just fine, as I pointed out in a previous posting. Lay it on the line, what viewpoints aren't being heard?
So, why do we need so much money in our politics? Because it is goddamn expensive to talk to 200 million people! That many postage stamps (for 1 mailing from 1 candidate) costs $70 million! For one measley mailing! (Give me first class postage, and I'll ignore the envelope stuffers who cost even more.) Not to mention TV, radio, multiple candidates, multiple issues, primaries, elections, referenda.... it takes big bucks in toto, but per head it's kind of reasonable given what we get from our democracy.
I do think the situation can be changed for the better: eliminate the anti-1st-amendment, free speech limitations on political spending. The alternative to that which I keep hearing is to allow some central committee of the government to decide who gets money for speech, the lifeblood of democracy: who says that's better and who do you think has the burden of proof?
Whoop-de-freekin-doo. I think you are vastly overestimating the power of a website. Regardless of how big and how wonderful a site is, I doubt that it would influence more than a relative handful of voters.
People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.
A fan!
"You really *do* like me!"
Thank you. It means a lot.
Having to fill out a form or report to ANY governmenmtal body for ANY political speech IS a restriction on free speech in and of itself.
The FEC can blow me.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
The problem with the solutions mentioned thus far to the campaign finance conundrum is that they all seek to fix things within the framework of the current system.
As near as I can reckon, the current system of campaigns and elections operates something like this:
1) candidates collect donations from constituents, a disproportionate share of which comes from wealthy individuals and organizations.
2) candidates spend donations with Big Media, buying advertising which raises awareness among voters. The biggest spenders generate the most awareness and also get annointed as "leading candidates," making it easier to raise more money, get covered by the press, organize campaign staffs, etc.
3) candidates with the widest awareness, best press coverage, best organized campaigns, etc., win their elections
4) candidates take office and enact laws which represent their constituents' interests as best they can determine. Of course, their constituents' interests are disproportionately represented by those who have given generously to their campaign.
5) candidates collect donations from constituents...
An appropriate reaction must be one that does not rely on the goodwill of establishment interests to fix this broken process. I.e., trying to enact laws to derail the current election process will necessarily fail, because lawmakers rely on strong economic interests for their power and the strong economic interests need to ensure their continued central position. The same thing is true for those who propose reliance on a free press, because the press's interests are tied to the candidates and the donors through ad spending.
Individuals' voices are not being heard, and it's too risky to pin your hopes on the belief that with enough rich people donating, everyone's views will be represented. The appropriate reaction is to reinvent the process, and organize to implement the new process. Luckily, our system still has one set of democratic safeguards, which are free elections; so ultimately, a well-organized populace has recourse. But, the channel for communication between citizens and leaders needs to be overhauled, from one based on campaign contributions and broadcast media to one based on a technology-enabled direct dialogue -- a dialogue enabled by the Internet.