I like liberals, properly prepared, of course. Just curious, you see some resemblance between Plessy v. Ferguson and this decision? Do you agree with the court's decision here to muzzle free speech during an election?
Funny, I like the idea of the average guy getting heard. Finally, those huge money last minute liberal slander ploys will stop. Again, the Supreme Court does the right thing, and we Americas will be the better for it.
The Plessy comment was just a dig at a silly remark about how liberal the Supreme Court is. I have no problem with the Court placing limitations on $$ spent during an election, even if there is a resulting limitation on the speech of the special interests in the form of fewer comercials. That being said, I always considered myself to be a 1st and 2nd Amendment absolutest, so I am concerned about the resulting effect on speech. The question is: to what extent will speech actually be limited by the new campaign finance laws? If speech is effected, will the benefits outweigh the negatives? Comments? Rodger
Here's how I see it: Let's say Congressman Jackass decides to make a run for Edwards' Senate seat here in NC. It's hard to win here without capturing a decent portion of the Bubba vote, and Congressmanr Jackass knows it, so he stands up in front of a group of sportsmen and says, "I'm fer huntin' and fishin' and setch, and I think the 2nd Amendment protects yer huntin' and fishin' priv'leges. I'll work to balance yer huntin' and fishin' priv'leges with the rights of the cityfolk." The headline in the State newspapers the next day: Congressman Jackass Supports Gun Owners. WRAL-TV runs a feature story during the 6pm News about how the Congressman looks out for the little Bubbas in their pickup trucks AND Biff and Muffy in their Bimmer. Isn't Congresman Jackass wonderful? This is the same news media that the Supremes say we should trust to furnish us fair, unbiased information We know through our direct dealings with Jackass down at the Legislature when he was a State Representative that he never saw an anti-hunting or anti-gun bill he didn't like, so we decide to run an issue ad prior to the primary to let the public know that he's lying to get votes. Until now, we might have scooped up some funds from the Legislative War Chest, called ourselves "Sportsmen for Integrity In Politics" or something like that, and exposed Senator Jackass' record. He or his minions would be free to rebut, of course. In doing so he'd have to explain why his voting record doesn't jibe with his statement. Strike a blow for the little guys. Now, if we wanted to run that issue ad we must first form a PAC, collect money from individual donors that is specifically earmarked for exactly this purpose (running this specific issue ad), and we must report the names/addresses/occupations/donation amount of each and every one of those donors that contributes any substantial dollars. Oh, and by the way - we can't run it right before the primary. It has to run at least 30 days prior to the primary, or it's "electioneering." So, all Congressman Jackass has to do is wait until he's inside the 30-day window, and he can say anything he wants. He's totally free from anyone criticizing him, except for the same news media that fawned all over him. Yeah, there's alternatives. We can put up a website and hope people find it (we can't advertise its existence on TV though!). We can try an email campaign We could fly a banner around town during a college football game, or something. Or, we could try to talk to the news media and see if they'd be interested in running a controversial story, and maybe his opponent will be interested - but maybe not. In the meantime Congressman Jackass has the benefit of the free advertising the news media give him, and the knowledge that no one can come after him with "attack ads" to expose his lies. So, what the CFRA does is limit our options. The supporters are careful to say that it doesn't limit speech, in that you can still say whatever you want. You just can't say it using the same methods or within certain timeframes. I say it's a restriction on my freedom of speech. The Supremes say it isn't. They win. I lose. The average lunkhead with the mentality of a 10-year-old who runs around spewing, "All politicians are scum!" doesn't get it. He really thinks it's about keeping THEM from corrupting the process. He doesn't know who THEY are, but whoever THEY are, THEY keep interrupting his favorite quiz show with some stupid political message. So he's all for it if it means that he doesn't have to pretend to pay attention. So in giving Mr. Lunkhead what he thinks he wants, the politicians have managed to hide the blatant evidence of corruption from the light of day, and got the Supremes to agree with them. A little under-wraps corruption is certainly better than the "appearance of corruption," isn't it?
If it would sway voters, why would the opponent and the press both ignore whatever it is [you're now not allowed to run] in your ad?
Plenty of reasons. The opponent might not want to deal with a particular issue because he/she might not want to get into a debate about it or have his/her position exposed. Most politicians are scared stiff of the "gun" issue - it's more poisonous than abortion or gay rights. The news media might not not care about a particular issue, might dislike us enough to think that ignoring our story would hurt us, might have a vested interest in Congressman Jackass winning the seat, those sorts of things. Here in my Congressional district the incumbent has been endorsed by and supported by the local media outlets every time he's run. He lost once, during the 1994 pogrom. The local media hated his successor (who was our former police chief) so much they made him look like a total buffoon while he was in office. He lasted one term, and the prior incumbent once again became our Congressman-For-Life.
Good post SlowAndScared Freedom is letting the other guy have a chance to share his opinion and thoughts even though you do not agree with them. This is the largest attack on our constitutional rights ever; it is of coarse done for our own good. If you belong to any group, teachers union, labor union religious group, 2-amendment group your rights to defend your position has now been taken away. What good can come of this change? All this does is make it nearly impossible to remove an incumbent who has a horrible voting record, especially one that has the support of the liberal media.
