Non profit groups like Focus on the Family or NARAL pro choice would clearly not be allowed to advertise as they promote a political agenda.
Wrong - both would still be allowed to advertise, just not name/picture candidates
Big oil companies might try to sneak in political messages such as claiming they've helped cleaned up parts of the state with help from the state government (this message would clearly be an endorsement of the party in power).
they ALREADY do this
Of course big corporations own news outlets and when they're not allowed to directly advertise about something they could just buy a news outlet incorporate their messages into the programing.
Which is why the FCC needs to start doing it's job in reguards to enforcing non-bias in the newsmedia
Also David Letterman and Jay Leno would not be allowed to put candidates on their TV show unless maybe if they give each candidate equal time which is unlikely since there are usually over 300 or so people actively campaigning for president during any given election cycle and we would clearly not allow them to discriminate against smaller parties and independents this would only solidify the main party's strangle hold to power!
not all 300 of those peolpe can get on the ballot
not all face time would count as promotion - it's a fine line
Next of course late night TV jokes about the candidates would have to be shut down as this could clearly be an endorsement if more jokes were made about one candidate than another.
Nope - way to pull stuff out yer arse
All media would have to be stictly purged of all political content.
Pulling more stuff out yer arse
Political rallies and protest are another creative way to circumvent these enlightened campaign finance laws. This is a clear way to support your candidate outside the prescribed campaign finance system. All political rallies would also have to be crushed.
You do not have a first ammendment right to give money to your candidate for the very reason that Money IS speech. The person with the most money has more of a voice, violating the right to equal representation of the other people in the district.
Which can also be stated.
Since money = speech in the political world, through buying the favor of candidates, the person with more money can effectively silence the voices of other people in the district. This is a violation of the right to equal representation and therefore not a protected exercise of the first ammendment.
As I stated before: you do not understand the difference between rights (a protected exercise of a right) and license (an exercise of a right that infringes on the rights of others so is not protected by said right)
As far as I can tell, citizens running for political office are people. Plus, the various Campaign Finance Control laws generally don't just control what a candidate is allowed to say or do, but also control what people who support or oppose that candidate are allowed to say or do.
Your point in stating the obvious being?
Who writes the laws that determine who can and can't get on the ballot? It certainly isn't the Green or Libertarian Party.
Just like the last election I consider this simply more whining: the only examples of actual unfair laws got owned him court.
If you cannot collect enough signatures to get on the ballot, is there really any point for you to be on the ballot?
and I do ask that people atleast READ my posts before replying.
what would they do with the money raised by the $100-a-plate dinner? Under the system i proposed it's illegal for them to use it to campaign - so what would they do with it?
Id make penalties for violations MINIMUM: Felony, bared from elected/appointed government positions for life, jail term.
I am neither a fascist nor a totalitarian by any definition of those words and until you concede that point you surrender your entire argument by openin it with an argumentum ad hominem.
I have every right to support any candidate I want, in any way I want, so long as the resources I am using are mine.
You forgot "and doing so does not violate the rights of my fellow man". Giving money to a candidate directly is buying favor thereby disenfranchizing your fellow man - plain and simple. The politician votes in the favor of those who BOUGHT AND PAID FOR HIM, not those who voted for him not knowing better than to believe his lies that he would represent them on anything beyond the basic hotbutton issues [which are often the least important]
I do not trust the current crop of criminals in washington to be able to buy a pack of gum without being paid by 5 briberiss. What is propose requires several changes beyond simply this.
This has nothing to do with advertising - this is about people buying favor with candidates which is EXACTLY what campaign contributions are - no matter WHERE they come from.
The person with money is buying the favor of the candidate and thereby effectively disenfranchizing those without money.
Perhaps if you bothered to READ MY POST you would realize it would be a BOON FOR THE THIRD PARTIES
And you need to learn what the definitions of totalitarianism and fascism are my very ingorant foe.
You do not have the right to buy the favor of your representatives and thereby disenfranchize your fellow man - which is EXACTLY what direct campaign donations is doing and anyone who denies such is full of it
In all the replies to my post people keep speaking as if I was speaking of the candidates voice - I am not speaking about the candidates voice - I am speaking about the peoples
to ensure that third parties never have a chance.
Yes because All individuals on the ballot receiving equal money - no more, no less favors the Republicans and the Democrats.
I do that people atleast READ my posts before replying.
Same principle. You have no right to demand that others subsizide your speech, nor to insist that others refrain from espousing their own.
Nobody is being asked to refrain from espousing there own position here - i'm just advocating that they're just not allowed to buy favor from candidates anymore. It's the only solution I see.
'Equal representation' is one man, one vote -- oh, and there are certain rules about being able to contact your legislators. That's it.
The world according to Stonehand
However in Real Life(tm) equal representation is interfered with by moneyed individuals and corporations currying favor with candidates through contributions - You need look no farther than Orin Hatch and Jack Ambramoff for two PRIME examples that prove me 100% correct.
Money buys congresscritters/the president and their favor: silencing and disenfranchizing those without money.
Wow, that is doublethink of a quality not seen (other than as deliberate satire) outside of Daily Kos.
that is both an argumentum ad hominem, and you are ignoring the rest of the statement that explains that - allow me to state it again: The person with the most money has more of a voice, violating the right to equal representation of the other people in the district.
This is an issue BEYOND partisanship, and you just revealed yourself as not being able to raise above partisanship ever - not even when the pressing need of your country is screaming out for a solution to the culture of corruption in bribery that is gripping washington today and has for many yeas - but is particularily bad under the current crop of criminals.
Perhaps this is why you refuse to see the simple truth of the farce that is "one man, one vote" so long as individual campaign contributions are allowed: because it has put into power those who hold your authoritarian viewpont.
You admit that money IS speech yet somehow in the same breath claim that makes it speech NOT protected by the 1st Amendment. Sorry, if it is speech then "Congress shall make NO law...."
You clearly don't understand the difference between rights and license. "Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of speech" - however your freedom of speech does not include actions which deny others their equal representation in the government which is what campaign contributions are.
Yet so long as all are men are equal before the law, all have but one vote and all may speak freely without fear of government reprisal then we have a free and fair political process.
Individual campaign contributions to individual candidates PREVENTS all men being qual and all having but one vote - those with more money have MORE votes, those with no money have but one.
To ignore this simple truth is to ignore history and ignore the present.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
The only problem with the system you suggest is that it favors the incumbents. Without cold, hard cash there is no way an unknown, but otherwise intelligent and capable person can run for a government office.
No it doesn't because the incumbancy advantage is removed. I think you misunderstood my idea.
Say the race is for president and the pool of money is $100m. There are three candidates - The Incumbent Challenger A Challenger B
All three get 1/3 of $100m to spend on their campaign - no private money [including their own] is allowed.
In any case, political speech in support of a candidate is exactly the type of speech that should be most free.
As you said - money is money and speech is speech - not one in the same by your own assertion. So by your assertion this statement is off-base.
My assertion is otherwise. All speech should be free so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others - THIS form of speech - campaign contributions - DOES infring upon the rights of others.
That would be considered a campaign contribution in-kind - the equivilent of giving money.
no private comercials could be run naming or picturing a specific candidate - the most specific they could be is "support the candidate that supports concept-x"
It's the only possible way I see ending the culture of bribery in washington
In practice you'll find that my fundamental assertion is correct for the overwhelming majority of cases.
More money = more representation in the candidates votes - the people with no money get no representation beyond the hotbrand issues which most of them aren't even fully informed enough on to make the correct decision and push their representative into having to make a poor one.
What makes you think campaign contributors are convinced of the merits of their candidates? Quite the opposite is true really, most campaign contributors know full well that what they want from their candidate is in their own best interests, and not in the best interests of the people in general.
That was exactly my point.
They likely wouldn't contribute any money at all in your system... which might very well be a positive side-effect.
You do not have a first ammendment right to give money to your candidate for the very reason that Money IS speech. The person with the most money has more of a voice, violating the right to equal representation of the other people in the district.
Not all exercises of a right are protected exercises: if that exercise infringes upon the rights of others then it is NOT protected - and SHOULD NOT BE.
The only way to remove the corporate-whore money culture from washington is to REMOVE ALL INDIVIDUAL FUNDING of Candidates. All money for an election should go into one pool, then all the candidates on the ballot should get an equal proportion. Want your candidate to be heard more? ok, but all the others have to be too - if your so convinced of the merits of your candidate than this shouldn't bother you at all.
At the same time we should switch to instant-runoff voting, and completely open sourced Evoting machines with strict auditing of code, and voter-confirmed paper audit.
Some Finer points: A) I was talking about McGovern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGovern) B) The DLC is not the DNC - the DLC is the conservative wing of the democratic party. C) Moonie papers are not a reliable source D) The Democrats are not currently in power, so they don't have all the access to the accurate information they need to make a coherent plan. Only a retard would make a list of specifics without all the information, and only a moron would expect them to. [Yes i just called about half of the american people idiots - anyone who willingly subjects themselves to propaganda daily without question is an idiot]
The Democrats have very specific ideas on how to do things - but they come down to "if this is the exact condition we need to do this, but if it's this other thing then this" -- we don't have access to the information for the exact situation on the ground to make the determination.
I do agree that the democratic politicians in washington are doing a piss-poor job of representing democratic ideals and communicating the message.
There is a difference between "closing the borders" and "securing the borders" I don't know any democrat who is against securing the borders. Closing them is stupid.
The entire reason the democrats are viewed as "weak on national security" is because of the fact that a pacificst ran on the democratic party ticket 30-some years ago - it's stupid. The Democrats have more represenatives who used to be in the military than the republicans do.
The Unitary Executive Theory is bunk and clearly contradicted by several parts of the constitution and previous court decisions - and he's taken it far enoug that he's breaking the law
Slashdot Mirror
Non profit groups like Focus on the Family or NARAL pro choice would clearly not be allowed to advertise as they promote a political agenda.
Wrong - both would still be allowed to advertise, just not name/picture candidates
Big oil companies might try to sneak in political messages such as claiming they've helped cleaned up parts of the state with help from the state government (this message would clearly be an endorsement of the party in power).
they ALREADY do this
Of course big corporations own news outlets and when they're not allowed to directly advertise about something they could just buy a news outlet incorporate their messages into the programing.
Which is why the FCC needs to start doing it's job in reguards to enforcing non-bias in the newsmedia
Also David Letterman and Jay Leno would not be allowed to put candidates on their TV show unless maybe if they give each candidate equal time which is unlikely since there are usually over 300 or so people actively campaigning for president during any given election cycle and we would clearly not allow them to discriminate against smaller parties and independents this would only solidify the main party's strangle hold to power!
not all 300 of those peolpe can get on the ballot
not all face time would count as promotion - it's a fine line
Next of course late night TV jokes about the candidates would have to be shut down as this could clearly be an endorsement if more jokes were made about one candidate than another.
Nope - way to pull stuff out yer arse
All media would have to be stictly purged of all political content.
Pulling more stuff out yer arse
Political rallies and protest are another creative way to circumvent these enlightened campaign finance laws. This is a clear way to support your candidate outside the prescribed campaign finance system. All political rallies would also have to be crushed.
Pulling stuff out of your arse
-Raging Bob
Raging IDIOT bob you mean
No that's not what I said.
What I said is this:
You do not have a first ammendment right to give money to your candidate for the very reason that Money IS speech. The person with the most money has more of a voice, violating the right to equal representation of the other people in the district.
Which can also be stated.
Since money = speech in the political world, through buying the favor of candidates, the person with more money can effectively silence the voices of other people in the district. This is a violation of the right to equal representation and therefore not a protected exercise of the first ammendment.
As I stated before: you do not understand the difference between rights (a protected exercise of a right) and license (an exercise of a right that infringes on the rights of others so is not protected by said right)
As far as I can tell, citizens running for political office are people. Plus, the various Campaign Finance Control laws generally don't just control what a candidate is allowed to say or do, but also control what people who support or oppose that candidate are allowed to say or do.
Your point in stating the obvious being?
Who writes the laws that determine who can and can't get on the ballot? It certainly isn't the Green or Libertarian Party.
Just like the last election I consider this simply more whining: the only examples of actual unfair laws got owned him court.
If you cannot collect enough signatures to get on the ballot, is there really any point for you to be on the ballot?
and I do ask that people atleast READ my posts before replying.
fixed
I then use that money to publish a book/newsletter, etc, saying what a great guy Senator Hoohoo is and why everyone should vote for him.
That's a campaign contribution, and even now I believe it already counts.
What happens when an incumbant governor has his attorney general bring an investigation against his challengers?
The independant election integrity commission brings them up on charges and convicts them and neither could hold office ever again their entire lives.
What's worse is that the system you've proposed will only serve to make it harder for those who are not already politically connected to get in.
They're mandated an equal ammount of money to spend on their campaign.
Probably the best thing to do is to get corporate money out of the situation. Corporations are not humans and should not be treated as if they were.
Already with our caps on how much corproates can give many evade it by giving the money in the names of individuals - ie 1000x the $1000 personal cap.
As long as money is directly going to candidates it's bribery.
Some method of stopping the bribery must be found.
let's take one of your examples
what would they do with the money raised by the $100-a-plate dinner? Under the system i proposed it's illegal for them to use it to campaign - so what would they do with it?
Id make penalties for violations MINIMUM: Felony, bared from elected/appointed government positions for life, jail term.
I am neither a fascist nor a totalitarian by any definition of those words and until you concede that point you surrender your entire argument by openin it with an argumentum ad hominem.
I have every right to support any candidate I want, in any way I want, so long as the resources I am using are mine.
You forgot "and doing so does not violate the rights of my fellow man". Giving money to a candidate directly is buying favor thereby disenfranchizing your fellow man - plain and simple. The politician votes in the favor of those who BOUGHT AND PAID FOR HIM, not those who voted for him not knowing better than to believe his lies that he would represent them on anything beyond the basic hotbutton issues [which are often the least important]
I do not trust the current crop of criminals in washington to be able to buy a pack of gum without being paid by 5 briberiss. What is propose requires several changes beyond simply this.
This has nothing to do with advertising - this is about people buying favor with candidates which is EXACTLY what campaign contributions are - no matter WHERE they come from.
The person with money is buying the favor of the candidate and thereby effectively disenfranchizing those without money.
Perhaps if you bothered to READ MY POST you would realize it would be a BOON FOR THE THIRD PARTIES
And you need to learn what the definitions of totalitarianism and fascism are my very ingorant foe.
You do not have the right to buy the favor of your representatives and thereby disenfranchize your fellow man - which is EXACTLY what direct campaign donations is doing and anyone who denies such is full of it
You do not know the difference between rights and license
People who are famous also have more of a voice.
In all the replies to my post people keep speaking as if I was speaking of the candidates voice - I am not speaking about the candidates voice - I am speaking about the peoples
to ensure that third parties never have a chance.
Yes because All individuals on the ballot receiving equal money - no more, no less favors the Republicans and the Democrats.
I do that people atleast READ my posts before replying.
Same principle. You have no right to demand that others subsizide your speech, nor to insist that others refrain from espousing their own.
Nobody is being asked to refrain from espousing there own position here - i'm just advocating that they're just not allowed to buy favor from candidates anymore. It's the only solution I see.
'Equal representation' is one man, one vote -- oh, and there are certain rules about being able to contact your legislators. That's it.
The world according to Stonehand
However in Real Life(tm) equal representation is interfered with by moneyed individuals and corporations currying favor with candidates through contributions - You need look no farther than Orin Hatch and Jack Ambramoff for two PRIME examples that prove me 100% correct.
Money buys congresscritters/the president and their favor: silencing and disenfranchizing those without money.
I disagree - simply having your name out there in the news isn't enough to protect an incumbency if you had no more money to spend than you oponant.
Especially if we tighten up slander laws relating to campaign advertising
I'm not talking about the candidates rights - i'm talking about the rights of the citizens they're supposed to serve.
Remind me which part of the constitution guarantees the rights of political candidates on the campaign trail equal representation?
I'm not talking about the political candidates having equal time on the air with their adds
i'm talking about the citizens they serve having an equal voice in congress/the presidency
Orrin Hatch
Wow, that is doublethink of a quality not seen (other than as deliberate satire) outside of Daily Kos.
that is both an argumentum ad hominem, and you are ignoring the rest of the statement that explains that - allow me to state it again: The person with the most money has more of a voice, violating the right to equal representation of the other people in the district.
This is an issue BEYOND partisanship, and you just revealed yourself as not being able to raise above partisanship ever - not even when the pressing need of your country is screaming out for a solution to the culture of corruption in bribery that is gripping washington today and has for many yeas - but is particularily bad under the current crop of criminals.
Perhaps this is why you refuse to see the simple truth of the farce that is "one man, one vote" so long as individual campaign contributions are allowed: because it has put into power those who hold your authoritarian viewpont.
You admit that money IS speech yet somehow in the same breath claim that makes it speech NOT protected by the 1st Amendment. Sorry, if it is speech then "Congress shall make NO law...."
You clearly don't understand the difference between rights and license. "Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of speech" - however your freedom of speech does not include actions which deny others their equal representation in the government which is what campaign contributions are.
Yet so long as all are men are equal before the law, all have but one vote and all may speak freely without fear of government reprisal then we have a free and fair political process.
Individual campaign contributions to individual candidates PREVENTS all men being qual and all having but one vote - those with more money have MORE votes, those with no money have but one.
To ignore this simple truth is to ignore history and ignore the present.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
The only problem with the system you suggest is that it favors the incumbents. Without cold, hard cash there is no way an unknown, but otherwise intelligent and capable person can run for a government office.
No it doesn't because the incumbancy advantage is removed. I think you misunderstood my idea.
Say the race is for president and the pool of money is $100m. There are three candidates -
The Incumbent
Challenger A
Challenger B
All three get 1/3 of $100m to spend on their campaign - no private money [including their own] is allowed.
In any case, political speech in support of a candidate is exactly the type of speech that should be most free.
As you said - money is money and speech is speech - not one in the same by your own assertion. So by your assertion this statement is off-base.
My assertion is otherwise. All speech should be free so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others - THIS form of speech - campaign contributions - DOES infring upon the rights of others.
That would be considered a campaign contribution in-kind - the equivilent of giving money.
no private comercials could be run naming or picturing a specific candidate - the most specific they could be is "support the candidate that supports concept-x"
It's the only possible way I see ending the culture of bribery in washington
In practice you'll find that my fundamental assertion is correct for the overwhelming majority of cases.
More money = more representation in the candidates votes - the people with no money get no representation beyond the hotbrand issues which most of them aren't even fully informed enough on to make the correct decision and push their representative into having to make a poor one.
What makes you think campaign contributors are convinced of the merits of their candidates? Quite the opposite is true really, most campaign contributors know full well that what they want from their candidate is in their own best interests, and not in the best interests of the people in general.
That was exactly my point.
They likely wouldn't contribute any money at all in your system... which might very well be a positive side-effect.
exactomundo
You do not have a first ammendment right to give money to your candidate for the very reason that Money IS speech. The person with the most money has more of a voice, violating the right to equal representation of the other people in the district.
Not all exercises of a right are protected exercises: if that exercise infringes upon the rights of others then it is NOT protected - and SHOULD NOT BE.
The only way to remove the corporate-whore money culture from washington is to REMOVE ALL INDIVIDUAL FUNDING of Candidates. All money for an election should go into one pool, then all the candidates on the ballot should get an equal proportion. Want your candidate to be heard more? ok, but all the others have to be too - if your so convinced of the merits of your candidate than this shouldn't bother you at all.
At the same time we should switch to instant-runoff voting, and completely open sourced Evoting machines with strict auditing of code, and voter-confirmed paper audit.
Centrifugal is not a proper term, - centripetal, and it's not even related to gravity - it's an inertia thing.
Some Finer points:
A) I was talking about McGovern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGovern)
B) The DLC is not the DNC - the DLC is the conservative wing of the democratic party.
C) Moonie papers are not a reliable source
D) The Democrats are not currently in power, so they don't have all the access to the accurate information they need to make a coherent plan. Only a retard would make a list of specifics without all the information, and only a moron would expect them to. [Yes i just called about half of the american people idiots - anyone who willingly subjects themselves to propaganda daily without question is an idiot]
The Democrats have very specific ideas on how to do things - but they come down to "if this is the exact condition we need to do this, but if it's this other thing then this" -- we don't have access to the information for the exact situation on the ground to make the determination.
I do agree that the democratic politicians in washington are doing a piss-poor job of representing democratic ideals and communicating the message.
There is a difference between "closing the borders" and "securing the borders" I don't know any democrat who is against securing the borders. Closing them is stupid.
The entire reason the democrats are viewed as "weak on national security" is because of the fact that a pacificst ran on the democratic party ticket 30-some years ago - it's stupid. The Democrats have more represenatives who used to be in the military than the republicans do.
The Unitary Executive Theory is bunk and clearly contradicted by several parts of the constitution and previous court decisions - and he's taken it far enoug that he's breaking the law