Scott Walker recall takes an unexpected turn.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by FE3O4ENAIL

From the link:
"For three decades after World War II – I call it the “Great Prosperity” – wages rose in tandem with productivity. Americans shared the gains of growth, and had enough money to buy what they produced.

That’s largely due to the role of labor unions. "
Really? It wasn't that we blew up most of the rest of the worlds factories in the war? Labor unions did it. No.

The fact that the rest of the world was damaged by WWII contributed to the rise of productivity. It didn't determine how much of the resulting fruits went to owners and how much went to workers.

[Reginald Hobbes]

Article on JS online today about campaign donations.

Walker does seem to have support from some "common people", although it doesn't say how many of these donations came from residents.

Walker has stressed that most of his contributions are small, saying 76% of them were $50 or less. We found he's essentially correct. To put it another way, 73% of his $25 million came from donations of $50 and less.

And, I thought all those $500k checks would've increased Walker's average, but apparently not.

Walker: $142 average in-state contribution; $115 average out-of-state contribution

Barrett: $141 average in-state contribution; $112 average out-of-state contribution

[FE3O4ENAIL]

I would like to point out the disinformation out there about Walker signs.It is claimed the big signs are bought and paid for by nonWisconsinites.
If you see an "oversized" sign in someones yard, they paid $100 for the sign. Small signs are free.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

The fact that the rest of the world was damaged by WWII contributed to the rise of productivity. It didn't determine how much of the resulting fruits went to owners and how much went to workers.

I think FDR's legacy helped there immensely, in general terms.

[BrainGlutton]

And, the vote-suppressors are gearing up in Wisconsin. Specifically, True the Vote.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Reginald Hobbes

Article on JS online today about campaign donations...

And this? (Same cite)

...Two groups based outside of Wisconsin that aren't required to disclose the sources of their money have made expenditures on Walker's behalf.

Republican Governors Association, Washington, D.C.: $4.88 million spent

Americans for Prosperity, Arlington, Va.: $2.7 million spent, based on a Wisconsin Democracy Campaign estimate....

Not precisely the same as "campaign donations", if you parse the phrase carefully enough.....

[BigAppleBucky]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/ma...oq4YzcSqHB5Udw

ALEC takeover of a state.

Dale Schultz is my hero.

The next day, Pocan outlined a strategy ALEC advises its members to use: “You have to introduce a 14-point platform,” he said, “so that you can make it harder for them to focus and for the press to cover 14 different planks.” He pointed to several bills introduced in the past two sessions, including one that allows more children to enroll in virtual charter schools. “It sounds good,” Pocan said. “Kids could access virtual schools for home schooling. But again,” he emphasized, the real purpose is “taking apart public schools, drip by drip.”

For Compas, the pivotal moment came when the collective-bargaining measure was passed. On March 9, 2011, Scott Fitzgerald led a hastily called meeting of the Senate and Assembly leadership. A few days earlier, the Assembly voted on the budget-repair bill that included the collective-bargaining measure, but the Senate had been unable to pass it because of a rule requiring a quorum of 20 members to vote on fiscal measures. At that point, the 14 Senate Democrats were still in hiding in Illinois, leaving the Republicans with just 19 votes. After attempts at persuasion and withholding their paychecks failed to bring the Democrats back, Senate Republicans decided to separate the collective-bargaining measure from the budget bill and vote on it immediately.

During the meeting, a heated argument erupted between Fitzgerald and Peter Barca, the Assembly minority leader. “I said I wanted an explanation of what’s in this document, so I can at least know what I’m voting on,” Barca told me. He had been handed a 37-page summary of the bill, not the bill itself. Fitzgerald ignored his request and, five minutes later, called the roll. By a 4-0 vote the committee separated the measure from the budget bill. It was then passed by both houses within hours. “I said, ‘I just want to make you aware that this meeting is a violation of the open meetings law,’ ” Barca said he told Fitzgerald, who called the meeting less than two hours before. (Under Wisconsin law, a government body is generally required to give 24 hours notice to the public before it meets.) The exchange was captured on WisconsinEye, a local version of C-Span, and went viral.

“Barca’s standing there yelling, ‘This is a violation of the law!’ ” Compas said. “I just sat there, and I cried. I’ve never felt so powerless and so frustrated. Regardless of where you stood on this issue, the complete contempt that Fitzgerald was showing for his legislators was unacceptable. That night I think I tweeted: ‘I will recall Scott Fitzgerald if I have to crawl on my hands and knees through the snow to every house in his district.’ ”

Like many other Wisconsinites, Lorman was surprised when the collective-bargaining measure was introduced. “It was like being blindsided,” she said. “Walker’s agenda, which was always there but nobody knew it, really came from somewhere else, like the Koch brothers, the national party and ALEC. I don’t think it was a local agenda, frankly.”

My personal hope is that the divisiveness will abate after the recalls. If the Fitzwalkers get stung a bit, they may realize they can't just walk over people and need to work with them.

[BrainGlutton]

There's an unusually high turnout in early voting in Madison.

[Reginald Hobbes]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

There's an unusually high turnout in early voting in Madison.

Might be a bad sign for Walker, might not.
Even if 100k have already early voted for Barrett, being in the lead today is irrelevant.
That's assuming none of those people are voting more than once.

[BigAppleBucky]

- to the rich.

Longish Cap Times article this week.

The Fitzwalkers are pleading poverty, yet have all this largess for the "job creators". What a crock.

http://host.madison.com/ct/business/...a4bcf887a.html

Slipped into Gov. Scott Walker's 2011-2013 budget at the last moment, the domestic production tax credit will cost the state $360 million in revenue over the next four years and some $130 million each year thereafter, according to the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau. Critics warn the impact could be even greater, a key point in a state still struggling with budget shortfalls.

The credit applies to profits derived from manufacturing or agriculture and is available both to corporations and shareholders of limited liability companies, S corporations or others who report business income on their individual tax returns.

As a result, top bracket taxpayers could see their state income tax rate fall from 7.75 percent to less than zero by 2016, when the credit fully kicks in.

As an example, Harris points to U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, whose family owns the PACUR manufacturing company in Oshkosh. Johnson paid $645,000 in state income taxes on income of $9.5 million from 1997 to 2008, according to campaign finance reports. Under the production credit, Johnson would have seen his state income taxes eliminated — with enough left over to shelter some of his investment income.

An unitentended consequence is that many businesses may get themselves calssified as manufacturers in order to take advantage of the new credit which would, of course, increase the cost of the program.

When Barrett mentioned this as one Walker position he would reverse, the Walker campaign predictably jumped down his throat about "taxing job creators".

[elucidator]

I haven't personally verified this, just heard it on Rachel Maddow last night. I trust her fact checking, no reason you have to but.... Twenty five to one is given as the ratio of spending for this recall. You don't need me to tell you in who's favor. 25 to 1.

Reggie, fair enough if you want Walker to continue, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom. Be that as it may, wouldn't it be just the dandiest thing for people to prevail over money?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by elucidator

I haven't personally verified this, just heard it on Rachel Maddow last night. I trust her fact checking, no reason you have to but.... Twenty five to one is given as the ratio of spending for this recall. You don't need me to tell you in who's favor. 25 to 1.

Reggie, fair enough if you want Walker to continue, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom. Be that as it may, wouldn't it be just the dandiest thing for people to prevail over money?

Of course, people who vote for Walker don't count as "people".

[Reginald Hobbes]

Originally Posted by elucidator

I haven't personally verified this, just heard it on Rachel Maddow last night. I trust her fact checking, no reason you have to but.... Twenty five to one is given as the ratio of spending for this recall. You don't need me to tell you in who's favor. 25 to 1.

Reggie, fair enough if you want Walker to continue, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom. Be that as it may, wouldn't it be just the dandiest thing for people to prevail over money?

No, I don't really trust Ms. Maddow. According to First Read msnbc (about half way down the page)

According to our data, Walker and GOP-leaning outside groups (like the RGA and Americans for Prosperity) have spent nearly $23 million on the airwaves, compared with $10 million for the Democrats -- and $4 million was spent behalf of Kathleen Falk, who lost to Barrett in the recall primary.

So that would be 2.3 to 1 if you count the Falk spending, about 3.8 to 1 if you don't.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Reginald Hobbes

So that would be 2.3 to 1 if you count the Falk spending, about 3.8 to 1 if you don't.

And also it's a bit dishonest to compare primary election spending vs. general election spending. Primary spending is always quite a bit less.

[elucidator]

Operative words being "have spent". Do you have a count for money donated and committed but not yet spent? Fat lady hasn't sung yet, and the money tends to reach its crescendo profundo just before she does, yes?

[Reginald Hobbes]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Operative words being "have spent".

I thought that Maddow quote was referring to money already spent. Sorry if I misunderstood.

Do you have a count for money donated and committed but not yet spent?

No. But it would have to be at least $125 million to reach that 25-1 ratio. I think that is unlikely.

[BrainGlutton]

Strong contrast in style.

As his historic June 5 recall election nears, Walker delivers his message to voters from a safe distance. His campaign carefully limits all public access and holds events mostly at his campaign offices or at businesses that can restrict who comes in. Most appearances are announced with only a few hours' notice.

Meanwhile, underdog Barrett spends precious campaign time mingling with the masses and making the rounds of farmers' markets, coffee shops and parades in search of votes. His campaign publicizes events with the hope of attracting as many people as possible.

The tactics reflect two well-established political strategies and signal the state of the race with less than two weeks to go. Walker holds a slim lead, according to recent polls, built with the financial support of conservatives nationwide who rallied after labor unions helped organize the recall over his anti-union legislation. Walker wants to minimize risks and avoid protesters. Barrett, who won the Democratic nomination to oppose Walker only this month, hopes to strike a spark.

Walker's advisers "want him in a sealed-off, tightly controlled, noncontroversial setting because they don't want to rile people up," said Democratic pollster Paul Maslin, a veteran of recall campaigns who worked for California Gov. Gray Davis when he fought unsuccessfully against a recall in 2003. "He can't do retail anymore. Like it or not, he's graduated to another level of politics. He just became the symbol of a much bigger fight."

Barrett referred to Walker's style as "clearly a bunker mentality. You can sort of see the formula -- go to a business, talk to the CEO, selected employees, poof, you're on the road."

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Reginald Hobbes

I thought that Maddow quote was referring to money already spent. Sorry if I misunderstood....

Well, I said I didn't verify, and I didn't, so I don't perzackly know either.

....No. But it would have to be at least $125 million to reach that 25-1 ratio. I think that is unlikely.

Oh! Well, just for shits and giggles, is there a point where you might think a money unbalance is unjustifiable? For me, as an egalitarian, I'm pretty content with 25 million dollars, say, if its one dollar from 25 million people. Sort of thing boosts my confidence in the candidate's populist credentials. 25 million from a couple of dozen fat cats? Not so much. YMMV.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Well, I said I didn't verify, and I didn't, so I don't perzackly know either.




Oh! Well, just for shits and giggles, is there a point where you might think a money unbalance is unjustifiable? For me, as an egalitarian, I'm pretty content with 25 million dollars, say, if its one dollar from 25 million people. Sort of thing boosts my confidence in the candidate's populist credentials. 25 million from a couple of dozen fat cats? Not so much. YMMV.

I'd say any money at all in this process is unjustifiable. Ban all paid political advertising, give every candidate an equal ration of free air time.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

I'd say any money at all in this process is unjustifiable. Ban all paid political advertising, give every candidate an equal ration of free air time.

You would have to repeal the first amendment to do that.

[Chronos]

Nope, everyone can speak, but the government is not required to provide them a forum to do so.

The bigger problem would be defining who counts as a real candidate, and who's just filing to get free air time.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Nope, everyone can speak, but the government is not required to provide them a forum to do so.

In order to ban all paid political advertising, as BrainGlutton put it, you have to repeal the first amendment.

[elucidator]

Well, you should have said something!

[elucidator]

And beside, piffle.

There are all kinds of restrictions on the first. Shouting "theater!" in a crowded fire, for instance. Of course there are practical limits on free speech, as well as cultural ones. Restrictions on showing a nipple on TV, in a culture where you can download 15.1 giganipples in about two seconds flat.

What scant hopes I still nourish depend more on a cultural change, starting with transparency. Let the people see who spends what to get their greasy Mitts on the levers of power. I hope that they will start to weigh that, to ask themselves how much money should be allowed to affect their opinions. Its not important that the doctrine of "Money talks, therefore it votes" should be made illegal, it is more important that it be made disgusting.

[Oldeb]

Originally Posted by Terr

In order to ban all paid political advertising, as BrainGlutton put it, you have to repeal the first amendment.

I don't see how that follows any more than the First Amendment had to be repealed to ban tobacco advertisements. Tobacco ads have been banned from TV and radio since 1970 without much complaint. Since 2010 they've been banned from sponsoring sporting, music or cultural events, also without incident. They're not even allowed to put their logo on clothing.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Terr

In order to ban all paid political advertising, as BrainGlutton put it, you have to repeal the first amendment.

No, you don't. You need only get a SCOTUS in place that will accept the plain fact that money is not speech and will overturn such contrary decisions as Buckley v. Valeo.

From The Next American Nation, by Michael Lind (The Free Press, 1995), pp. 256-259 (from before the McCain-Feingold Bill, but I don't think the picture has changed all that much since it passed):

Campaign financing is by far the most important mechanism for overclass influence in government. The real two-party system in the United States consists of the party of voters and the tiny but influential party of donors. The donor party in the United States is made up of an extraordinarily small number of citizens. In 1988, according to one study, only 10.2 percent of the American public made a contribution to a candidate, party, or partisan group. . . . The group of large political donors is a still more exclusive club. According to a study by Citizen Action, in the 1989-90 election cycle only 179,677 individual donors gave contributions greater than $200 to a federal candidate, political action committee (PAC), or party: "Thirty-four percent of the money spent by federal candidates was directly contributed by no more than one-tenth of one percent of the voting age population." One may reasonably doubt that this one tenth of one percent is representative of the electorate or the population at large.

<snip>

Special interests buy favors from congressmen and presidents through political action committees (PACs), devices by which groups like corporations, professional associations, trade unions, investment banking groups -- can pool their money and give $10,000 per election to each House and Senate candidate. Today there are more than 4,000 Political Action Committees (PACs) of various kinds registered with the Federal Election Commission; in 1974, when they were sanctioned by law, there were only 500. PAC money is driving campaign costs to new heights. In 1992, the average Senate incumbent spent more than $3.6 million for re-election; that is the equivalent of raising $12,000 a week in a single six-year term. Members of Congress, by comparison, spend only an average of $557,403 to be re-elected -- a "mere" $5,000 a week for a two-year term. The average cost of a House campaign has risen to this level from $140,000 in 1980 -- and $52,000 in 1974.

The chief beneficiaries of rising campaign costs and PAC contributions have been incumbents. In 1972, 52 cents of the average PAC dollar went to incumbents, compared to 25 cents to challengers (the rest went to candidates for open seats); in the 1988 House elections, incumbents received 84.4 cents of each PAC dollar and challengers only 8.6 cents. It makes more sense for lobbies to buy access to established members of Congress and senators -- particularly those with important leadership positions -- than to fund challengers, who, if elected, would have no seniority and little influence. . . . Former Senator Barry Goldwater has lamented, "The Founding Fathers would frown in their graves if they saw us rationing candidacies sheerly on the basis of money: who has -- or can raise -- the millions necessary to run for office."

Democrats, when they were members of the majority party, received more PAC money than Republicans, though both parties are saturated with it. Contrary to conservative claims that liberal lobby groups dominate Congress, PAC funds come overwhelmingly from business: in 1990, 65 percent of PAC contributions came from business PACs, compared to 24 percent from labor and only 11 percent from ideological groups (including conservative as well as liberal pressure groups). "At one point," John Judis has pointed out, "the American Petroleum Institute employed more lobbyists in Washington than the entire labor movement."

They don't come much more libertarian than Goldwater, and even he was appalled at this state of affairs.

From the same book, pp. 311-313:

Today's U.S. government is democratic in form but plutocratic in substance. . . . In a misguided 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that Congress could not limit spending by rich Americans promoting their own candidacies. This decision was to the equalization of voting power what Dred Scott was to abolitionism. In The Yale Law Review, Jamin Raskin and John Boniface have argued that political candidates in the United States must win a "wealth primary." Candidates without enormous amounts of money, either from their own fortunes or from rich individuals and special interest groups, cannot hope to win the party primaries -- much less general elections. Indeed, the Buckley decision is one reason why more than half the members of the Senate today are millionaires. . . .

It is time to build a wall of separation between check and state. Curing the disease of plutocratic politics requires a correct diagnosis of its cause: the costs of political advertising. The basic problem is that special interests buy access and favors by donating the money needed for expensive political advertising in the media. Elaborate schemes governing the flow of money do nothing to address the central problem: paid political advertising. Instead of devising unworkable limits on campaign financing that leave the basic system intact, we should cut the Gordian knot of campaign corruption by simply outlawing paid political advertising on behalf of any candidate for public office. The replacement of political advertising by free informational public service notices in the electronic and print media would level the playing field of politics and kill off an entire parasitic industry of media consultants and spin doctors.

An outright ban on paid political advertising and the imposition of free time requirements on the media are radical measures, but nothing less is necessary if we are to prevent our government from continuing to be sold to the highest bidders. The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the content of speech -- only its volume, as it were. It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well.*

*A much more compelling analogy would be between the electoral process and the judicial system, with the electorate playing the role of the jury. In our system of trial by jury, there are elaborate rules governing the presentation of evidence to the jury by plaintiff and defendant (the "candidates"). If our judicial system were organized the way our judicial system is, then rich candidates would be allowed to buy time before the jury. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, in one Senate election, outspent his opponent by 300 to 1; the equivalent, in the judicial system, would be allowing a rich defendant to buy, say, six months to present his side of the case, while the poor plaintiff might be able to purchase only twenty minutes for his side.

[mkecane]

Originally Posted by elucidator

There are all kinds of restrictions on the first. Shouting "theater!" in a crowded fire, for instance.

I'm stealing that.

[elucidator]

You can have "greasy Mitts" too. I'm a little ashamed of that one. A little.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

No, you don't. You need only get a SCOTUS in place that will accept the plain fact that money is not speech and will overturn such contrary decisions as Buckley v. Valeo.

I am a gazillionaire. I want to run ads in newspapers on TV and newspapers, spouting whatever political view and supporting whatever political candidate I want. All using my money, of course. Tell me how you would stop me without repealing the first amendment.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Terr

I am a gazillionaire. I want to run ads in newspapers on TV and newspapers, spouting whatever political view and supporting whatever political candidate I want. All using my money, of course. Tell me how you would stop me without repealing the first amendment.

It doesn't matter where the money comes from, it's still paid political advertising, therefore (under my/Lind's proposal) illegal.

The point here is to make it not merely difficult but impossible for anybody -- including the candidates themselves -- to influence the outcome of any election by spending money on it. Our only choices are that or plutocracy. Jefferson wouldn't like our plutocracy.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

It doesn't matter where the money comes from, it's still paid political advertising, therefore (under my/Lind's proposal) illegal.

Again, you would have to repeal the first amendment to make it illegal. In the scenario I gave you can't even bring up that tired argument that "giving money isn't speech" - there is no giving going on. You would blatantly restrict the freedom of an individual to express himself in a newspaper or on TV.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Terr

Again, you would have to repeal the first amendment to make it illegal. In the scenario I gave you can't even bring up that tired argument that "giving money isn't speech" - there is no giving going on.

There is spending going on. You and I can express our opinions for free or almost-free on the Intertubes. The Koch Brothers and the Scaife Foundations and such can do a great deal more, because of who they are and what they have; they can speak loudly enough to drown out other voices, and often do, as we see now in Wisconsin. And that ain't right, and our Founding Fathers would not have approved. The First Amendment would have been drafted very differently if the Information/Advertising Age had been anticipated; therefore it should now be interpreted very differently, and don't gimme no originalist/textualist bullshit, I'm looking at you, Bricker.

Originally Posted by Terr

You would blatantly restrict the freedom of an individual to express himself in a newspaper or on TV.

Media outlets will always have the freedom to editorialize, I don't propose interfering with that. Fox News and MSNBC will still be there, politicizing the news, each in its own way. And they will have the freedom to publish letters to the editor or their electronic equivalent, or not to. And that is enough. "Freedom" should not extend to using your fortune to take over the airwaves with your message.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

There is spending going on.

Where? I am a gazillionaire. I own a billboard company. I put up tens of thousands of billboards all over the country promoting political ideas I like and candidates I like. How would you stop me without trashing the first amendment?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Terr

Where? I am a gazillionaire. I own a billboard company. I put up tens of thousands of billboards all over the country promoting political ideas I like and candidates I like. How would you stop me without trashing the first amendment?

Asked and answered.

Bear in mind that there are democracies, such as France, where such a system as Lind is proposing is in place and works. They remain democracies, and they remain free countries with free speech.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Asked and answered.

Asked, yes. Certainly not answered.

Bear in mind that there are democracies, such as France, where such a system as Lind is proposing is in place and works. They remain democracies, and they remain free countries with free speech.

Nope. They don't have the first amendment in their constitution or the equivalent. Ours says "congress shall make no law". Theirs says you can say whatever you want as long as it is not against the law. Quite different. That's why in France if you say something critical about the government's policy on illegal drugs, for example, you can and will be punished. Is that the "freedom of speech" you're advocating?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Terr

Asked, yes. Certainly not answered.
Nope. They don't have the first amendment in their constitution or the equivalent. Ours says "congress shall make no law". Theirs says you can say whatever you want as long as it is not against the law. Quite different. That's why in France if you say something critical about the government's policy on illegal drugs, for example, you can and will be punished. Is that the "freedom of speech" you're advocating?

France ranks high enough on the Democracy Index. Canada ranks higher than the U.S. and I've heard many complaints about "free speech" limitations there.

As for punishment of political speech in France, I've heard of that in connection with Holocaust-denial (which raises my hackles a bit, but far, far less than our plutocracy does), but a prohibition on criticizing drug policy is a new one to me. Cite, please?

[BrainGlutton]

Getting back to Wisconsin:

Milwaukee – Last night, the citizens of Wisconsin got a first-hand look at the gubernatorial candidates as they came together for their first of two head to head debates. Walker earlier in the day had tweeted that the debate should be “simple”, showing an air of undeserved confidence which quickly turned into outright panic, moments after the debate began.

Walker appeared to be stunned when confronted with tough questions regarding his out of state billionaire donors and travels, as well as being taken to task for releasing his own job numbers that conflict dramatically with those released by the non-partisan Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Tom Barrett made it a point to ask Gov. Scott Walker the questions that the mainstream media has failed to ask throughout the campaign, those being “Why won’t Scott Walker release the emails sent through the secret network that was set up in the Milwaukee County Executive office?” and “Why won’t Scott Walker release the details of his travel across the country?”

In both cases, Walker crawled into his shell like a little boy sticking his fingers in his ears screaming “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you!” Barrett continued to question Walker’s claims of a budget surplus in Wisconsin just weeks before the election. Barrett says Walker has pulled out the credit card and forced future generations to pick up a 150 million dollar tab, just in interest, with his attempt to score political points just before the election. Walker had no answers and seemed dumbfounded that not everyone bought into his attempted “Boondoggle” of the issues.

Anybody here watch that debate and remember it differently? (Serious question, I missed it.)

[BrainGlutton]

Wikiquotes on campaign-finance reform:

Today's political campaigns function as collection agencies for broadcasters. You simply transfer money from contributors to television stations. Senator Bill Bradley, 2000.

We've got a real irony here. We have politicians selling access to something we all own -our government. And then we have broadcasters selling access to something we all own — our airwaves. It's a terrible system. Newton Minow, former Federal Communications Commission chairman (2000).

You're more likely to see Elvis again than to see this bill pass the Senate. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (1999) on the McCain-Feingold Bill on Campaign Reform

Unless we fundamentally change this system, ultimately campaign finance will consume our democracy. Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) (1996).

[Buckley v. Valeo is] one of the most weakly reasoned, poorly written, initially contradictory court opinions I've ever read. Senator (and former federal district court judge) George J. Mitchell (D-ME) (1990).

We don't buy votes. What we do is we buy a candidate's stance on an issue. Allen Pross, executive director, California Medical Association's PAC (1989).

Political action committees and moneyed interests are setting the nation's political agenda. Are we saying that only the rich have brains in this country? Or only people who have influential friends who have money can be in the Senate? Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) (1988).

The day may come when we'll reject the money of the rich as tainted, but it hadn't come when I left Tammany Hall at 11:25 today. George Washington Plunkett (1905).

Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor, not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and propitious fortune. James Madison, Federalist 57 (1788).

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Getting back to Wisconsin:



Anybody here watch that debate and remember it differently? (Serious question, I missed it.)

I missed it too, but it's not too late to watch it if you've got some spare time today.

[Jonathan Chance]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Operative words being "have spent". Do you have a count for money donated and committed but not yet spent? Fat lady hasn't sung yet, and the money tends to reach its crescendo profundo just before she does, yes?

Not really. Just as a factual point money spent tends to peak about 3 months out. At least on advertising time. Both in my experience as a media guy, a candidate, and as a volunteer in Ohio.

The issue there is that by the time the last few weeks of a campaign arrive all available ad space has been purchased. Options are purchased months in advance and can lock out opponents in the final weeks. Happens in most elections far in advance of E-Day.

Where cash CAN come in handy at the end is in printing. Making sure the volunteers have flyers to put in doors and such. Robocalls (though the capacity for that is limited to a certain extent as well...it can be bought out but it's expensive to do so) and other forms of one-to-one marketing.

[gamerunknown]

Have there been any first amendment cases successfully won by tobacco companies?

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Our only choices are that or plutocracy. Jefferson wouldn't like our plutocracy.

Madison would: "levelling spirit" of man and all that.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

France ranks high enough on the Democracy Index. Canada ranks higher than the U.S. and I've heard many complaints about "free speech" limitations there.

As for punishment of political speech in France, I've heard of that in connection with Holocaust-denial (which raises my hackles a bit, but far, far less than our plutocracy does), but a prohibition on criticizing drug policy is a new one to me. Cite, please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_France

a 1970 law prohibits the advocacy of illegal drugs.[1][2]
...
Others express the need for minorities to be protected from hate speech which may lead, according to them, to heinous acts and hate crimes, while still others claim that one can not tolerate free speech concerning drugs as it is a matter of public health and moral order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom...ech_by_country

An addition to the Public Health Code was passed on the 31 December 1970, which punishes the "positive presentation of drugs" and the "incitement to their consumption" with up to five years in prison and fines up to €76,000. Newspapers such as Libération, Charlie Hebdo and associations, political parties, and various publications criticizing the current drug laws and advocating drug reform in France have been repeatedly hit with heavy fines based on this law.
...
As part of “internal security” enactments passed in 2003, it is an offense to insult the national flag or anthem, with a penalty of a maximum 9,000 euro fine or up to six months' imprisonment.
...
Restrictions on "offending the dignity of the republic", on the other hand, include "insulting" anyone who serves the public (potentially magistrates, police, firefighters, teachers and even bus conductors)

===============================

A veritable beacon of freedom of speech, France, isn't it?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Madison would: "levelling spirit" of man and all that.

"Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor, not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and propitious fortune." James Madison, Federalist 57 (1788).

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Terr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_France

a 1970 law prohibits the advocacy of illegal drugs.[1][2]
...
Others express the need for minorities to be protected from hate speech which may lead, according to them, to heinous acts and hate crimes, while still others claim that one can not tolerate free speech concerning drugs as it is a matter of public health and moral order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom...ech_by_country

An addition to the Public Health Code was passed on the 31 December 1970, which punishes the "positive presentation of drugs" and the "incitement to their consumption" with up to five years in prison and fines up to €76,000. Newspapers such as Libération, Charlie Hebdo and associations, political parties, and various publications criticizing the current drug laws and advocating drug reform in France have been repeatedly hit with heavy fines based on this law.
...
As part of “internal security” enactments passed in 2003, it is an offense to insult the national flag or anthem, with a penalty of a maximum 9,000 euro fine or up to six months' imprisonment.
...
Restrictions on "offending the dignity of the republic", on the other hand, include "insulting" anyone who serves the public (potentially magistrates, police, firefighters, teachers and even bus conductors)

===============================

A veritable beacon of freedom of speech, France, isn't it?

OK, I don't approve of any of that, and I acknowledge you've got a point there. However, I think (for reasons stated above) that campaign financing is a distinguishable subject for all purposes, political as well as constitutional. And if the First Amendment does irreducibly get in the way of separating state from checkbook, then we need to amend it; yes, it's that important. And I say that as one indoctrinated to worship the First Amendment, I was a newspaper reporter once.

Since this subject is much broader than any particular election or election cycle, I have started a GD thread, let's take it there. Start your engines.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Shouting "theater!" in a crowded fire, for instance.

Its not important that the doctrine of "Money talks, therefore it votes" should be made illegal, it is more important that it be made disgusting.

Originally Posted by mkecane

I'm stealing that.

Originally Posted by elucidator

You can have "greasy Mitts" too. I'm a little ashamed of that one. A little.

Let him have both of them, luc; I want this one:

Originally Posted by elucidator

Its not important that the doctrine of "Money talks, therefore it votes" should be made illegal, it is more important that it be made disgusting.

That's the kind of thing that makes you one of my heroes.

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by Terr

You would have to repeal the first amendment to do that.

Deleted my comment on that.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

That's the kind of thing that makes you one of my heroes.

Do you vote the way you do because of the political advertising you see? Does elucidator? Do you think any of the people who post on political topics on this board do?

If not, then guess what - money neither talks nor votes in our cases.

[BigAppleBucky]

Not exactly the strongest source.

I've also read (internet spectulation) that the indictments won't be handed down until after the recall election. That's brutal. If the indictments are indeed, pending, the voters should know about them before the election. If there will be no indictments, rumors of them are unfairly injurious to Walker.

If no action will be taken prior to the election, I would favor the DA making some sort of statement to the effect that the investigation in on-going and no conclusions have been reached.

http://hngwiusa.wordpress.com/2012/0...june-election/

May 26, 2012

Milwaukee – On Friday, investigative information released by a reliable source indicated that Governor Scott Walker (R) and up to five others in the governor’s circle while he was Milwaukee County executive will be facing several felony charges resulting from the John Doe investigation.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Terr

Do you vote the way you do because of the political advertising you see? Does elucidator? Do you think any of the people who post on political topics on this board do?

If not, then guess what - money neither talks nor votes in our cases.

What should we conclude from this factoid? That money, no matter what the amount, is not corrosive to the democratic process?

[elucidator]

Do you vote the way you do because of the political advertising you see? Does elucidator? Do you think any of the people who post on political topics on this board do?

Somebody must believe it, or they spend a buttload of money pretending they do.