Because the FCC thinks giving the CPI the data will give a competitive advantage to the other broadband companies.
The FCC's behavior is pretty brazen; the CPI isn't a broadband service provider, so I suspect that other than verifying the FCC's results (or disproving them), the data is in pretty good hands.
I think you hit on the key point here; The Center for Public Integrity isn't an ISP. they're a watchdog group, so the FCC's objection is nonsensical.
It's like telling the police "I'm not going to honor your search warrant because it might give you an advantage over the other counterfeiting operations." Actually, it makes even less sense, because if you did this you could at least be setting yourself up for an insanity defense.
This is even worse than their claim that giving out cell phone service area / outage maps (so that people could tell if the vendors were lying to them before they signed a contract) would somehow help the terrorists beat us over here before they could beat us over there or something.
It might be interesting to look back at those threads and see if we could figure out who the astroturfers are.
I've also thought, more ambitiously, that it might be interesting to see if there were discernible patterns to postings by astroturfers, or to threads on which this was happening. I'm not sure what exactly to look for (especially since we don't have access to the IP addresses), but their still might be some pattern of boiler plate text, or things block copied from other sites, or...
Ignoring the issue with the readership, what would the registration accomplish anyway? You can already see who contributes to the politicans' campaigns, and that doesn't seem to do change anything.
With registration, when Exxon hires a PR firm to create "Dr. Brown's Global Warming Truth Blog" and spread some manure about it being caused by cows, they would have to fess up about the fact that it was a work done for hire. Without registration, there's no way to know that "Dr. Brown" the world famous climatologist is really a team of creative writing and PoliSci majors who use google to find buzzwords.
The article is by Andrew Orlowski, the same guy that reported that Jimmy Wales was dead as part of his ongoing attack on Wikipedia, printed fabricated e-mails, and otherwise upheld the fine standards of Register journalism.
Has anyone actually listened to the audio to hear what Kahn actually said?
it would be illegal for you to engage in political commentary without getting onto that list in the first place
You keep misrepresenting the text, despite the fact that it is clear, frequently linked to on this thread, and has been explained multiple times.
Nothing in this bill would have prevented unregistered people from engaging in any sort of speech they liked. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
What would have required registration is hanging out your shingle as a service provider who would advocate points of view in exchange for money.
This is directly analogous to the situation w. lawyers. I can represent myself in court any time I choose. So can you. But if we want to go into the business of charging others to represent them in court, there are certain hoops we'll have to go through first. And that fact does not in any way infringe on our right to have a lawyer. Likewise, under the proposed bill, you could say anything you wanted, but if you decided that you'd rather hire someone to speak on your behalf they would (under certain circumstances) have to be registered.
While I mostly agree, it's not quite so clear cut.
Joe Lieberman, Rahm Emanuele, etc. on the Democratic side are just as tainted / crooked as anyone on the Republican side. Likewise, there are several (not nearly enough) voices of courage and reason reason even among the corporate press. And while the Pentagon and the CIA undoubtedly have many good people, I am equally sure that they have their share of bad eggs.
We are playing "Sneaches on the Beaches" for the fate of the world here, and there really aren't any labels that we can use to separate the good from the bad. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care what somebody calls themselves (or what they are called by others) what matters is what they stand for, and what they won't.
Seriously, having a president willing to change his mind when the situation changes (like the contents of a bill, or the state of a war) is a blessing. Having a president which refuses to change his mind when reality bites us all on the ass is a curse.
Agreed. But my point (which I made badly) was that in 2004 we were given the choice between an idiot who wouldn't change his mind even when he was obviously wrong, and one that was willing to change his even when he was obviously right.
**sigh**
I suppose (to paraphrase Rumsfield) you go to hell with the President you've got, not the President you wish you had. But I'd still rather an honest, intelligent statesman that I disagreed with on all the wedge issues than a corporate-puppet moron that parrots whatever they think I want to hear*.
--MarkusQ
* Al? Are your ears burning? Your nation needs you.
Umm, Foley was election rigging? How the hell do you figure that?
Foley wasn't election rigging, but the way Rahm Emmanuel dealt with it was (in my opinion at least). Different factions put different spin on it, but people from all across the political spectrum from the wing-nut right to the loony left agree on the basic outline:
Rahm Emmanuel, head of the DCCC, got wind of the fact that Foley was messing with underage pages
He did not notify authorities or the appropriate watchdogs of either party
Instead he contacted an associate who was eligible to run in FL-16 (Foley's district)
Together, they bribed/maneuvered the existing, grass roots supported candidate out of the race in FL-16 and convinced him to run in FL-10 instead
Rahm's buddy entered the race as the Democrat running against Foley in FL-16
After everything was set, they leaked the story
It really has nothing to do with Foley, or his party's homophobic platform, or even with Republicans vs. Democrats, and everything to do with cronyism and "fixers" working to thwart the will of the people. Foley was protected (and the pages weren't) because the people in power were more worried about the power of their little clique than about the will of the people and the responsibility that their position carries. Likewise, Foley was thrown from grace by an equally cynical clique that wanted the power for them selves.
And let me be perfectly clear here: Foley was not protected by "the Republican Party" (it was a safe seat for them, with or without him), but rather a corrupt faction within the party. And he was not undone by "the Democratic party" (they would have taken the seat regardless, once his hypocrisy became known) but rather by a corrupt faction within that party.
Be that as it may, it's not "election rigging" to bring up the bad behaviors of your opponent. For most of us, it's called running a campaign.
What Rahm Emanuel did was election rigging in my book. Not the tattling part, nor the hypocrisy (Rahm is quite possibly also gay), but manipulating the situation to get some elected in a district that, in the normal "will of the people" course of affairs, never would have elected him.
Please... you have a better chance of finding a do-do bird in Cuyahoga County.
You aren't the only one to have that reaction. The fact that such a large proportion of them apparently voted for Bush started some people wondering if the votes had been counted correctly.
Thus the 3rd party call for a recount, which the poll workers botched.
It's the very fact that the county is so heavily Democratic that got people wondering in the first place.
Hypothetical: We find out that John Kerry actually won Ohio... so BushCo. gets evicted and Kerry gets to be President for two weeks before Hillary gets sworn in.
What does he do?
Knowing Kerry, he'd probably pardon them for the various charges of election rigging, domestic wiretaps, ware crimes and other violations of international law, missing Iraq reconstruction funds, etc., etc. and then announce the next day that he hadn't meant to pardon them, but it was too late now and we should just move on.
Prosecutors do not allege vote fraud or that the mishandling of the recount affected the outcome of the presidential election.
That's why it's not a big deal. But it doesn't stop you or the editors from making a mountain out of a molehill.
Sure, sure, just like it's no big deal if somebody opens fire in a shopping mall, so long as they don't hit anybody. Or like the way it's OK to swipe people's credit cards, as long as you don't buy anything with them.
Electoral problems should be scrutinized and fixed based on their severity and merits, not how well they play into some "what if the other guy had won?" scenario.
I agree 100%. As I have said many times, I wouldn't be all that interested in having Kerry as President, though I don't like Bush either. But if we're going to have an election between two worthless shills I'd still insist on having an honest election between them.
Further, we should be (and, thankfully, some of us are) looking at the recent midterms as well. Cases like the guy that got no votes (even though he voted for himself), the close House race where 18000 votes went missing, and so on need to be investigated. Further, we should be paying a lot more attention to things like Rahm Emanuel's involvement in the timing of the Foley scandal, which constitute election rigging of a different sort.
And finally, we need to keep clear that this isn't a partisan issue. I am a registered Republican, but I want nothing to do with cheaters on "my side." This is actually a pretty common reaction at the grass roots level -- for instance, left leaning sites are as annoyed at Rahm as the right leaning sites.
Even in hyper-partisan times, the red team and the blue team (again, almost exclusively at the grass roots) have common ground in wanting a fair system.
That said I don't even know how this could be considered a reasonable argument since they had to count the boxes twice if I understand thing correctly.
The law says they have to manually recount a randomly selected 3%, and if that comes out close enough they can do the rest of the recount by running it through the machine again. Otherwise they would have had to manually recount them all.
So they did a quick search for precincts that might match (e.g., skip the ones where the total number of votes was way off or that otherwise looked fishy), counted some of them until the had 3% that would pass muster, and that became their "random sample" for the public recount.
What is amazing is that they (&, IIRC, the voting machine tech that helped them) admitted this to the people doing the recount.
There's no First Amendment for sex or having kids or dinner or opening a restaurant or riding a skateboard or committing murder or any of the other things you keep bringing up to evade the free speech issue.
Correct. They are adequately covered by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
But if you read back through the posts, you will see that:
The question of which amendment covers which rights doesn't effect the point I was making in the slightest
There is no free speech issue involved in the bill in question.
As I pointed out previously, it has nothing to do with any First Amendment rights, as you will see if you chart out the four logical possibilities:
Does not accept money to stimulate grassroots lobbying, and does not do so: no need to register
Does not accept money to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but does so anyway: no need to register
Accept money to stimulate grassroots lobbying, and does so: must register
Accept money to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but does not do so (defrauds client): must register anyway
This isn't a free speech issue at all, since nothing in the legislation prohibits/requires any act of speech, in any form. It is about taking money for performing a specific service, and it doesn't matter if the service is performed or not.
Yes, but thats not ok. If you take donations (moveon.org) you apply.
False. The text of the law makes it quite clear that donations, membership fees members of an organization to support the activity of the organization are not counted.
When speech is the service, that's a false distinction. And that's what the blog provisions of this bill attempt to restrict. Restricting the "service" of speech restricts speech.
Nuts. A false distinction? The distinction is a clear and salient one, which runs all through our culture. I'm allowed to have sex, but not to charge money for it. I can have all the kids I want, but if I try to sell them to someone I'll get in big trouble. I can invite friends over for dinner without so much as a fare-thee-well, but if I want to open a restaurant I'd darned better get a business license first, and be prepared for a visit from the health inspectors. And on, and on...
In fact, I'll go so far as to speculate that there are very few (if any) things where the rules do not change at least slightly depending on whether or not money changes hands. Can you think of, say, three or more? 'cause off the top of my head, I can't think of any.
I don't believe it's OK to restrict political speech. You apparently do. Only you're calling it "fraud", and "a service" and "astroturfing" and whatever else you can come up with to muddy the waters and provide cover for restricting political speech.
News flash: repeating something doesn't make it true. You keep saying that I want to restrict political speech, and (after repeated requests) have yet to point to a single instance where I said any such thing. And as for "muddying the waters," please note that I'm the one who has consistently cited and linked to the bill in question, while you simply toss straw men around like a tornado in a scarecrow factory.
While I would agree that the Senate (and the House, and even more importantly the Executive Branch) would do well to read the Constitution and try to follow it, I fail to see how that connects to the rest of your post, nor how the body of your post relates to the issue at hand.
There is no mention of any sort of licensing in the bill, and thus no requirements at all, no fees, nor any of the other things you seem to be worried about. The only thing the bill requires is public discloser of a certain type of financial arrangement in circumstances where failure to disclose the arrangement would tend to mislead the public. While most people don't find the idea of such disclosure objectionable, it seems to frighten some people a great deal.
The bill effectively creates "blog cops" who go around and check up on people engaging in speech. If you don't register, and you have been paid, then you're silenced (fined, arrested, intimidated, harrassed, etc.) by the blog cops. Period.
How odd. I read through the bill the other day and I didn't see anything about this. Could you point me to the specific section you are referring to please?
Also, note that you are again confusing the free speech / offering a service issue. For instance, using the same logical structure you could claim:
The murder laws effectively creates "skateboard cops" who go around and check up on people engaging in skateboarding. If you wear shoes, and you have been killed someone, then your skateboard will be taken away by the skateboard cops. Period.
But no one, I trust, would take this as a serious argument that the murder laws were unfairly aimed at skateboarders.
And finally, note that the question to which you were responding was not "how do you interpret the bill?" but rather where have I said anything about my personally wanting to restrict anyones speech?...which you still have not answered.
Are you talking about another guy? I can't find any reference to him working for a company making voting machines (rather, I can't find any reference to Yang Enterprises working on voting machines, but Google only helps so much).
In going to look for the story I recall reading about him, it appears I may have been crossing him with William Singer of Hart InterCivic, or perhaps someone else. At the very least, I can not locate the story I am remembering, which stated or implied that YEI was doing the software for a company which manufactures voting machines. So yes, if it turns out he wasn't actually involved in the software development in some way it does become harder to know what to make of him.
Nothing in this bill says anything about prohibiting anyone from saying or writing anything they want.
It is not, in any way shape or form, a free speech issue
The bill only applies to people taking money for providing a specific service and does not, in any way, prohibit them from doing so; it only requires that they register the fact that they are engaged in that activity.
What does "paid" mean? If someone is employed by the ACLU and defends free speech on his blog, does he have to register as a lobbyist or face fines and jail time?
No. The bill explicitly excludes members and employees of organizations who are writing on behalf of the organization. As you would have seen if you'd bothered to read it.
It seems pretty clear from your comment that you want to call some free speech "fraud" (even though no victims are actually being defrauded) or "astroturfing" in order to silence it.
Where in the heck are you getting this? Where have I said anything about silencing anyone's speech? And (more to the point) is it safe to assume that you have no rational argument to offer, and thus are just making things up as a last resort?
These restrictions were simply a way to silence critics by taking away their freedom of speech. There are plenty of justifications, but they all basically amount to "it only restricts people we don't like and it will give us an advantage".
Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.
None of this is, in any way shape or form restricting anyone's right to free speech. Nor are they aimed at silencing critics. The entire thrust is against fraudulent activities in which a small group of people attempt to exert undue influence over our government by throwing money around to create the impression that they represent more people than they actual do. No one is saying that they can't say whatever they want, just that they can't lie about who paid them to say it if there are, in fact, acting as paid shills for some other entity.
Note that there is informed support for this requirement from all sides of the political spectrum (even libertarians will, if pressed, admit that fraud is one of the legitimate functions of government, since fraud is by its very nature coercive). The objections seems to come entirely from known astroturfers, their clients, and people who are blindly repeating their talking points without reading the actual bill in question.
But to write software for machines that were mandated because of hanging chad months after you wrote it is odd. Not impossible, but a bit tenuous.
Why on Earth is that odd? Although the machines hadn't been mandated yet, they were certainly developing them for use in elections (why else would a company develop voting machines in the first place?) and if anyone was intending to rig them the time to do it would be before they were purchased by the state.
Would you watch the testimony of the cigarette executives stating that they do not believe smoking is bad without wanting to know who these guys were? Would you blindly believe them?
You're confusing expert testimony with a first hand witness. No, I don't consider tobacco company executive competent to give expert medical testimony, but their sworn first-hand accounts of events they participated in ("on such and such a date I did so and so") are as admissible as anyone else's. You are right, he might be lying under oath (anyone could) but despite what you seem to be implying there's nothing about the circumstance that would indicate that. He demonstrably was working as a computer programmer for a company that makes voting machines, and was involved in the development of the software for those machines at the time in question.
However, in researching it separately I've found that the bill may only apply to persons that are already required to register as lobbyists due to direct lobbying contacts, so that there's not in fact a registration requirement for anyone else, only a reporting requirement on stimulation of grassroots lobbying. If true, that would make a lot of sense, since it would explain how the bill could be constitutional: it doesn't apply to any arbitrary person who accepts money to say something (even if that something is stimulation of grassroots lobbying), it only applies to persons who engage in direct lobbying activity with the government, which is an activity where some justifications do exist for regulation.
Exactly! So far as I call tell, the whole "regulating speech" thing is a non-issue introduced (disingenuously, I suspect) by the astroturfers in order to stir up opposition to the bill. I'm willing to listen to anyone who can point to evidence to the contrary, but the only substantiation I've seen so far is links to material written by obviously biased individuals that are playing fast and loose with the facts.
One point on which we differ:
You seem to think that because money is involved, that changes things in some fundamental way
No, I claim (backed by the text of the bill in question) that this is about people who take money to do something, and not about free speech at all. Specifically to applies to people who are:
retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and
receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.
Which has nothing to do with any first amendment rights, as you will see if you chart out the four logical possibilities:
Does not accept money to stimulate grassroots lobbying, and does not do so: no need to register
Does not accept money to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but does so anyway: no need to register
Accept money to stimulate grassroots lobbying, and does so: must register
Accept money to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but does not do so (defrauds client): must register anyway
This isn't a free speech issue at all, since nothing in the legislation prohibits/requires any act of speech, in any form. It is about taking money for performing a specific service, and it doesn't matter if the service is performed or not.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you hit on the key point here; The Center for Public Integrity isn't an ISP. they're a watchdog group, so the FCC's objection is nonsensical.
It's like telling the police "I'm not going to honor your search warrant because it might give you an advantage over the other counterfeiting operations." Actually, it makes even less sense, because if you did this you could at least be setting yourself up for an insanity defense.
This is even worse than their claim that giving out cell phone service area / outage maps (so that people could tell if the vendors were lying to them before they signed a contract) would somehow help the terrorists beat us over here before they could beat us over there or something.
--MarkusQ
It might be interesting to look back at those threads and see if we could figure out who the astroturfers are.
I've also thought, more ambitiously, that it might be interesting to see if there were discernible patterns to postings by astroturfers, or to threads on which this was happening. I'm not sure what exactly to look for (especially since we don't have access to the IP addresses), but their still might be some pattern of boiler plate text, or things block copied from other sites, or...
Ideas?
--MarkusQ
With registration, when Exxon hires a PR firm to create "Dr. Brown's Global Warming Truth Blog" and spread some manure about it being caused by cows, they would have to fess up about the fact that it was a work done for hire. Without registration, there's no way to know that "Dr. Brown" the world famous climatologist is really a team of creative writing and PoliSci majors who use google to find buzzwords.
--MarkusQ
The article is by Andrew Orlowski, the same guy that reported that Jimmy Wales was dead as part of his ongoing attack on Wikipedia, printed fabricated e-mails, and otherwise upheld the fine standards of Register journalism.
Has anyone actually listened to the audio to hear what Kahn actually said?
--MarkusQ
You keep misrepresenting the text, despite the fact that it is clear, frequently linked to on this thread, and has been explained multiple times.
Nothing in this bill would have prevented unregistered people from engaging in any sort of speech they liked. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
What would have required registration is hanging out your shingle as a service provider who would advocate points of view in exchange for money.
This is directly analogous to the situation w. lawyers. I can represent myself in court any time I choose. So can you. But if we want to go into the business of charging others to represent them in court, there are certain hoops we'll have to go through first. And that fact does not in any way infringe on our right to have a lawyer. Likewise, under the proposed bill, you could say anything you wanted, but if you decided that you'd rather hire someone to speak on your behalf they would (under certain circumstances) have to be registered.
Ignoring this point will not make it go away.
--MarkusQ
While I mostly agree, it's not quite so clear cut.
Joe Lieberman, Rahm Emanuele, etc. on the Democratic side are just as tainted / crooked as anyone on the Republican side. Likewise, there are several (not nearly enough) voices of courage and reason reason even among the corporate press. And while the Pentagon and the CIA undoubtedly have many good people, I am equally sure that they have their share of bad eggs.
We are playing "Sneaches on the Beaches" for the fate of the world here, and there really aren't any labels that we can use to separate the good from the bad. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care what somebody calls themselves (or what they are called by others) what matters is what they stand for, and what they won't.
--MarkusQ
Agreed. But my point (which I made badly) was that in 2004 we were given the choice between an idiot who wouldn't change his mind even when he was obviously wrong, and one that was willing to change his even when he was obviously right.
**sigh**
I suppose (to paraphrase Rumsfield) you go to hell with the President you've got, not the President you wish you had. But I'd still rather an honest, intelligent statesman that I disagreed with on all the wedge issues than a corporate-puppet moron that parrots whatever they think I want to hear*.
--MarkusQ
* Al? Are your ears burning? Your nation needs you.
Foley wasn't election rigging, but the way Rahm Emmanuel dealt with it was (in my opinion at least). Different factions put different spin on it, but people from all across the political spectrum from the wing-nut right to the loony left agree on the basic outline:
It really has nothing to do with Foley, or his party's homophobic platform, or even with Republicans vs. Democrats, and everything to do with cronyism and "fixers" working to thwart the will of the people. Foley was protected (and the pages weren't) because the people in power were more worried about the power of their little clique than about the will of the people and the responsibility that their position carries. Likewise, Foley was thrown from grace by an equally cynical clique that wanted the power for them selves.
And let me be perfectly clear here: Foley was not protected by "the Republican Party" (it was a safe seat for them, with or without him), but rather a corrupt faction within the party. And he was not undone by "the Democratic party" (they would have taken the seat regardless, once his hypocrisy became known) but rather by a corrupt faction within that party.
What Rahm Emanuel did was election rigging in my book. Not the tattling part, nor the hypocrisy (Rahm is quite possibly also gay), but manipulating the situation to get some elected in a district that, in the normal "will of the people" course of affairs, never would have elected him.
But if you don't like that example, there are lots more from the Democratic side; take Joe Lieberman's $387,000.00 "petty cash" shuffle in the primary for example.
--MarkusQ
Oh, the irony. My remarks about Kerry were not intended as a troll.
It was a botched attempt at a joke.
**sigh** I suppose I deserve it.
--MarkusQ
You aren't the only one to have that reaction. The fact that such a large proportion of them apparently voted for Bush started some people wondering if the votes had been counted correctly.
Thus the 3rd party call for a recount, which the poll workers botched.
It's the very fact that the county is so heavily Democratic that got people wondering in the first place.
--MarkusQ
Knowing Kerry, he'd probably pardon them for the various charges of election rigging, domestic wiretaps, ware crimes and other violations of international law, missing Iraq reconstruction funds, etc., etc. and then announce the next day that he hadn't meant to pardon them, but it was too late now and we should just move on.
--MarkusQ
Sure, sure, just like it's no big deal if somebody opens fire in a shopping mall, so long as they don't hit anybody. Or like the way it's OK to swipe people's credit cards, as long as you don't buy anything with them.
--MarkusQ
I agree 100%. As I have said many times, I wouldn't be all that interested in having Kerry as President, though I don't like Bush either. But if we're going to have an election between two worthless shills I'd still insist on having an honest election between them.
Further, we should be (and, thankfully, some of us are) looking at the recent midterms as well. Cases like the guy that got no votes (even though he voted for himself), the close House race where 18000 votes went missing, and so on need to be investigated. Further, we should be paying a lot more attention to things like Rahm Emanuel's involvement in the timing of the Foley scandal, which constitute election rigging of a different sort.
And finally, we need to keep clear that this isn't a partisan issue. I am a registered Republican, but I want nothing to do with cheaters on "my side." This is actually a pretty common reaction at the grass roots level -- for instance, left leaning sites are as annoyed at Rahm as the right leaning sites.
Even in hyper-partisan times, the red team and the blue team (again, almost exclusively at the grass roots) have common ground in wanting a fair system.
--MarkusQ
The law says they have to manually recount a randomly selected 3%, and if that comes out close enough they can do the rest of the recount by running it through the machine again. Otherwise they would have had to manually recount them all.
So they did a quick search for precincts that might match (e.g., skip the ones where the total number of votes was way off or that otherwise looked fishy), counted some of them until the had 3% that would pass muster, and that became their "random sample" for the public recount.
What is amazing is that they (&, IIRC, the voting machine tech that helped them) admitted this to the people doing the recount.
--MarkusQ
Correct. They are adequately covered by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
But if you read back through the posts, you will see that:
As I pointed out previously, it has nothing to do with any First Amendment rights, as you will see if you chart out the four logical possibilities:
This isn't a free speech issue at all, since nothing in the legislation prohibits/requires any act of speech, in any form. It is about taking money for performing a specific service, and it doesn't matter if the service is performed or not.
--MarkusQ
False. The text of the law makes it quite clear that donations, membership fees members of an organization to support the activity of the organization are not counted.
--MarkusQ
Nuts. A false distinction? The distinction is a clear and salient one, which runs all through our culture. I'm allowed to have sex, but not to charge money for it. I can have all the kids I want, but if I try to sell them to someone I'll get in big trouble. I can invite friends over for dinner without so much as a fare-thee-well, but if I want to open a restaurant I'd darned better get a business license first, and be prepared for a visit from the health inspectors. And on, and on...
In fact, I'll go so far as to speculate that there are very few (if any) things where the rules do not change at least slightly depending on whether or not money changes hands. Can you think of, say, three or more? 'cause off the top of my head, I can't think of any.
News flash: repeating something doesn't make it true. You keep saying that I want to restrict political speech, and (after repeated requests) have yet to point to a single instance where I said any such thing. And as for "muddying the waters," please note that I'm the one who has consistently cited and linked to the bill in question, while you simply toss straw men around like a tornado in a scarecrow factory.
--MarkusQ
While I would agree that the Senate (and the House, and even more importantly the Executive Branch) would do well to read the Constitution and try to follow it, I fail to see how that connects to the rest of your post, nor how the body of your post relates to the issue at hand.
There is no mention of any sort of licensing in the bill, and thus no requirements at all, no fees, nor any of the other things you seem to be worried about. The only thing the bill requires is public discloser of a certain type of financial arrangement in circumstances where failure to disclose the arrangement would tend to mislead the public. While most people don't find the idea of such disclosure objectionable, it seems to frighten some people a great deal.
--MarkusQ
How odd. I read through the bill the other day and I didn't see anything about this. Could you point me to the specific section you are referring to please?
Also, note that you are again confusing the free speech / offering a service issue. For instance, using the same logical structure you could claim:
But no one, I trust, would take this as a serious argument that the murder laws were unfairly aimed at skateboarders.
And finally, note that the question to which you were responding was not "how do you interpret the bill?" but rather where have I said anything about my personally wanting to restrict anyones speech?...which you still have not answered.
--MarkusQ
In going to look for the story I recall reading about him, it appears I may have been crossing him with William Singer of Hart InterCivic, or perhaps someone else. At the very least, I can not locate the story I am remembering, which stated or implied that YEI was doing the software for a company which manufactures voting machines. So yes, if it turns out he wasn't actually involved in the software development in some way it does become harder to know what to make of him.
--MarkusQ
Read the bill.
Nothing in this bill says anything about prohibiting anyone from saying or writing anything they want.
It is not, in any way shape or form, a free speech issue
The bill only applies to people taking money for providing a specific service and does not, in any way, prohibit them from doing so; it only requires that they register the fact that they are engaged in that activity.
No. The bill explicitly excludes members and employees of organizations who are writing on behalf of the organization. As you would have seen if you'd bothered to read it.
Where in the heck are you getting this? Where have I said anything about silencing anyone's speech? And (more to the point) is it safe to assume that you have no rational argument to offer, and thus are just making things up as a last resort?
--MarkusQ
fishbowl writes:
and also:
Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.
--MarkusQ
Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.
None of this is, in any way shape or form restricting anyone's right to free speech. Nor are they aimed at silencing critics. The entire thrust is against fraudulent activities in which a small group of people attempt to exert undue influence over our government by throwing money around to create the impression that they represent more people than they actual do. No one is saying that they can't say whatever they want, just that they can't lie about who paid them to say it if there are, in fact, acting as paid shills for some other entity.
Note that there is informed support for this requirement from all sides of the political spectrum (even libertarians will, if pressed, admit that fraud is one of the legitimate functions of government, since fraud is by its very nature coercive). The objections seems to come entirely from known astroturfers, their clients, and people who are blindly repeating their talking points without reading the actual bill in question.
--MarkusQ
Why on Earth is that odd? Although the machines hadn't been mandated yet, they were certainly developing them for use in elections (why else would a company develop voting machines in the first place?) and if anyone was intending to rig them the time to do it would be before they were purchased by the state.
You're confusing expert testimony with a first hand witness. No, I don't consider tobacco company executive competent to give expert medical testimony, but their sworn first-hand accounts of events they participated in ("on such and such a date I did so and so") are as admissible as anyone else's. You are right, he might be lying under oath (anyone could) but despite what you seem to be implying there's nothing about the circumstance that would indicate that. He demonstrably was working as a computer programmer for a company that makes voting machines, and was involved in the development of the software for those machines at the time in question.
--MarkusQ
Exactly! So far as I call tell, the whole "regulating speech" thing is a non-issue introduced (disingenuously, I suspect) by the astroturfers in order to stir up opposition to the bill. I'm willing to listen to anyone who can point to evidence to the contrary, but the only substantiation I've seen so far is links to material written by obviously biased individuals that are playing fast and loose with the facts.
One point on which we differ:
No, I claim (backed by the text of the bill in question) that this is about people who take money to do something, and not about free speech at all. Specifically to applies to people who are:
Which has nothing to do with any first amendment rights, as you will see if you chart out the four logical possibilities:
This isn't a free speech issue at all, since nothing in the legislation prohibits/requires any act of speech, in any form. It is about taking money for performing a specific service, and it doesn't matter if the service is performed or not.
--MarkusQ