Fifthly, as candidates need to raise more and more money, they will do more and more political favors to get that money. This will(and is) happen in Democratic and Republican parties.
That's the point. The opposite is happening. Because the number of people they need to draw on is decreasing they are doing far less favors. We mainly have idealogical politicians today while 20 years ago we mostly had pols who were for sale.
Fourthly, 30 second ads are a horrible way to disseminate information, as are radio ads, and post cards. They result in a misinformed public.
Do you have evidence for that? I would suspect knowledge about candidates correlates rather strongly with advertising.
Well if you support bribery as speech then obviously campaign finance laws aren't going to make sense. I'd say you might want to get some experience with what bribery does to a society.
Do you really think Fox or the NYT are more trustworthy than any other corporation?
Yes. Media companies have a limited number of issues which directly impact them. Outside of those issues, a media consensus represents a consensus of America's educated elite, the top 20%.
Once we start hitting the other 160 industries in the USA we get into hundreds of thousands of companies that have all sorts of regulatory and policy positions that they want. By limiting the scope to media companies we limited the number of money biases. And if we had old fashioned press laws which prevented media companies from being bought and sold by other companies and even then regulated they would be even more independent.
I agree and more importantly solving the chicken and egg problem for multiple input types. Between hardware, OS and applications someone had to go first. I think Windows 8 is exciting with where Microsoft is trying to lead.
I understand lots of institutions have lots of supporters. What racial group or semi-racial group do you believe the attackers on the Orthodox Church are targeting?
A) USA definition of government = those agencies exercising group power which exist by force of law. B) UK definition of government (the way you are using it) = the party in power, the Ministers.
A cook at the department of labor as part of the government. under (A) but not under (B). I meant (A) not (B) when I said the government shouldn't have this authority.
As for as stopping news media or individuals from "interfering" with an election that's the question whether telling people stuff is interfering or informing. I'm not willing to grant the presupposition that news can interfere.
Well the GP was arguing there was a distinction. You are arguing something more broadly, an almost total restriction on speech shortly before an election.
So if you want to start the discussion. Try and draft up what you think the law should be accomplishing and what the law should be (outline).
The political objectives of the NYTimes were never what was being regulated. It was the political objectives of the people buying ads for a candidate in the NYTimes. The idea being that the NYTimes' overall editorial bias more or less represents the bias of the top quartile anyway. A strong unified opinion at the NYTimes most likely represented a strong unified opinion among America's policy experts.
But it is always possible to sufficiently disguise paid speech as free
Yes. But this is like computer security. Nothing is perfect but if you make it enough of a pain in the neck people don't do it. The regulations did restrict lots of activities, they weren't perfect but they didn't need to be.
I'm an American. It is unclear to me after Citizen's United if things went south or not. The positives don't tend to get reported. As unlimited donations to superpacs have become the norm, the $500 / plate dinners have started disappearing. The petty corruption of raising money for ads that every congressmen was subject to have decreased. I don't like the whims of individual billionaires being news worthy, but OTOH the whims of billionaires are far less undermining to genuine democracy than millionaires who wanted specific laws. Further as the ads are 3rd party they have tended to be idealogical (i.e. idea based) and thus aim to change the voter's permanent opinions.
IMHO Citizen's United seems to be taking the USA back to the system we had from the civil war till 1936 were we had idealogical parties and presses that matched. Voters mostly had clear choices and elections were about shifting the allegiances of slices of the electorate. I'm honestly quite happy with what Citizen's United is doing to our system.
As an American... yes I'd rather the government not get to decide who is allowed to say what at any point, particularly laws that can be applied to politicians. I don't know how restrictions on speech make things more "free". I could see an argument for "fair", since these sorts of tactics can influence elections on the margins.
But regardless what the 1st Amendment protects is speech based on ideas. It is perfectly legal to publish government secrets, which is why the NYTimes or the Guardian were fine in the wikileaks case. What is illegal is to pass information to unauthorized agencies. Death threats are speech which doesn't have particular idea content but rather are actions. That can be regulated.
As for libel laws. Libel laws here are rather loose the burden of proof is very high, high enough that in practice they are rarely used.
McCain-Feingold never prohibited speech by existing media at all. It had some prohibitions on paid speech. We have strong protections for people lobbying congress and strong laws against bribery. Paid and free speech have never been treated the same.
It's the same if CNN of Fox news broadcast this type of stuff during election day (which I assume is illegal in America)
You would be assuming wrong. CNN or FOX can have a 24 hour presentation where they openly advocate for any candidates they want and say just about anything they want. The protections regarding political speech in the USA are very strong.
At least from the article this is not a 24 ban but rather a generalized law which prohibits negative treatments of candidates.
The USA has problems with financing related issues but I don't think there is anything good about generalized bans on negative advertising during a campaign. One of the nice things about US elections is with most any candidate for major office their opponent tells me all the bad stuff about them.
At $45 / mo you are on Virgin. You are a wholesale customer so you are getting less than Sprint's retail service. And Sprints retail service is nowhere near $100 / mo. The prepay plans are cheaper by about $10 or so once you fully wrap the cost of the postplay plans.
Boxing, shipping, advertising, other cost of sales. Warranty, extended warranty (that is sold at a loss) and phone technical support. R&D for an operating system, applications, the hardware and some of the components.
Geert Wilders campaigns against state subsidy. Yeah that makes him part of the right.
The definition of right is relative and amounts to the party with more support for the social hierarchy. Far right groups are groups that support the innately superiority of some groups generally racial discrimination but can also refer to support for noble families i.e. monarchists. Wilders is someone who supports strong anti-Islamic policies which effectively have strong racial undertones.
Conversely the attackers on the Orthodox Christians by another Greek likely to do not have a racial or semi-racial component.
Slashdot Mirror
Fifthly, as candidates need to raise more and more money, they will do more and more political favors to get that money. This will(and is) happen in Democratic and Republican parties.
That's the point. The opposite is happening. Because the number of people they need to draw on is decreasing they are doing far less favors. We mainly have idealogical politicians today while 20 years ago we mostly had pols who were for sale.
Fourthly, 30 second ads are a horrible way to disseminate information, as are radio ads, and post cards. They result in a misinformed public.
Do you have evidence for that? I would suspect knowledge about candidates correlates rather strongly with advertising.
No not really. The NYTimes isn't The Nation or The Progressive.
Well if you support bribery as speech then obviously campaign finance laws aren't going to make sense. I'd say you might want to get some experience with what bribery does to a society.
Do you really think Fox or the NYT are more trustworthy than any other corporation?
Yes. Media companies have a limited number of issues which directly impact them. Outside of those issues, a media consensus represents a consensus of America's educated elite, the top 20%.
Once we start hitting the other 160 industries in the USA we get into hundreds of thousands of companies that have all sorts of regulatory and policy positions that they want. By limiting the scope to media companies we limited the number of money biases. And if we had old fashioned press laws which prevented media companies from being bought and sold by other companies and even then regulated they would be even more independent.
microsoft needs the OEMs more than the OEMs need microsoft
I don't think so. Once OEMs start breaking with Microsoft maybe but right now they still are all Windows shops.
I agree and more importantly solving the chicken and egg problem for multiple input types. Between hardware, OS and applications someone had to go first. I think Windows 8 is exciting with where Microsoft is trying to lead.
I understand lots of institutions have lots of supporters. What racial group or semi-racial group do you believe the attackers on the Orthodox Church are targeting?
I see what's going on here.
A) USA definition of government = those agencies exercising group power which exist by force of law.
B) UK definition of government (the way you are using it) = the party in power, the Ministers.
A cook at the department of labor as part of the government. under (A) but not under (B). I meant (A) not (B) when I said the government shouldn't have this authority.
As for as stopping news media or individuals from "interfering" with an election that's the question whether telling people stuff is interfering or informing. I'm not willing to grant the presupposition that news can interfere.
Well the GP was arguing there was a distinction. You are arguing something more broadly, an almost total restriction on speech shortly before an election.
So if you want to start the discussion. Try and draft up what you think the law should be accomplishing and what the law should be (outline).
I gave points, you didn't. So other than name calling do you have anything to add?
What have been the effects on law after CU as contrasted with the lower dollar contributors from a decade ago?
The political objectives of the NYTimes were never what was being regulated. It was the political objectives of the people buying ads for a candidate in the NYTimes. The idea being that the NYTimes' overall editorial bias more or less represents the bias of the top quartile anyway. A strong unified opinion at the NYTimes most likely represented a strong unified opinion among America's policy experts.
But it is always possible to sufficiently disguise paid speech as free
Yes. But this is like computer security. Nothing is perfect but if you make it enough of a pain in the neck people don't do it. The regulations did restrict lots of activities, they weren't perfect but they didn't need to be.
I'm an American. It is unclear to me after Citizen's United if things went south or not. The positives don't tend to get reported. As unlimited donations to superpacs have become the norm, the $500 / plate dinners have started disappearing. The petty corruption of raising money for ads that every congressmen was subject to have decreased. I don't like the whims of individual billionaires being news worthy, but OTOH the whims of billionaires are far less undermining to genuine democracy than millionaires who wanted specific laws. Further as the ads are 3rd party they have tended to be idealogical (i.e. idea based) and thus aim to change the voter's permanent opinions.
IMHO Citizen's United seems to be taking the USA back to the system we had from the civil war till 1936 were we had idealogical parties and presses that matched. Voters mostly had clear choices and elections were about shifting the allegiances of slices of the electorate. I'm honestly quite happy with what Citizen's United is doing to our system.
Children are offered protections that adults are not.
Make the boy 25 and the burden goes way way up.
As an American... yes I'd rather the government not get to decide who is allowed to say what at any point, particularly laws that can be applied to politicians. I don't know how restrictions on speech make things more "free". I could see an argument for "fair", since these sorts of tactics can influence elections on the margins.
What distinguishes a political ad from a political opinion from a philosophical opinion?
But regardless what the 1st Amendment protects is speech based on ideas. It is perfectly legal to publish government secrets, which is why the NYTimes or the Guardian were fine in the wikileaks case. What is illegal is to pass information to unauthorized agencies. Death threats are speech which doesn't have particular idea content but rather are actions. That can be regulated.
As for libel laws. Libel laws here are rather loose the burden of proof is very high, high enough that in practice they are rarely used.
McCain-Feingold never prohibited speech by existing media at all. It had some prohibitions on paid speech. We have strong protections for people lobbying congress and strong laws against bribery. Paid and free speech have never been treated the same.
It's the same if CNN of Fox news broadcast this type of stuff during election day (which I assume is illegal in America)
You would be assuming wrong. CNN or FOX can have a 24 hour presentation where they openly advocate for any candidates they want and say just about anything they want. The protections regarding political speech in the USA are very strong.
At least from the article this is not a 24 ban but rather a generalized law which prohibits negative treatments of candidates.
The USA has problems with financing related issues but I don't think there is anything good about generalized bans on negative advertising during a campaign. One of the nice things about US elections is with most any candidate for major office their opponent tells me all the bad stuff about them.
Sure, good point. But he does seem generally in favor of less subsidy.
At $45 / mo you are on Virgin. You are a wholesale customer so you are getting less than Sprint's retail service. And Sprints retail service is nowhere near $100 / mo. The prepay plans are cheaper by about $10 or so once you fully wrap the cost of the postplay plans.
Boxing, shipping, advertising, other cost of sales.
Warranty, extended warranty (that is sold at a loss) and phone technical support.
R&D for an operating system, applications, the hardware and some of the components.
But yeah even still. High margins.
Display is LG. Flash is mostly Hynix and Toshiiba.
Geert Wilders campaigns against state subsidy. Yeah that makes him part of the right.
The definition of right is relative and amounts to the party with more support for the social hierarchy. Far right groups are groups that support the innately superiority of some groups generally racial discrimination but can also refer to support for noble families i.e. monarchists. Wilders is someone who supports strong anti-Islamic policies which effectively have strong racial undertones.
Conversely the attackers on the Orthodox Christians by another Greek likely to do not have a racial or semi-racial component.