-
The phrase is routinely used in national campaigns.
-
The article quoted in the OP is not using it in this sense.
-
This would be meaningful if the people using it were also concerned about, for example the Democratic and Republican national committees investing money in local campaigns, or political endorsements from politicians from other states, or if they decried the involvement of national organizations like labor unions, environmental groups, NARAL, etc. They don’t.
Strangers giving money to politicians I agree with are patriots “investing in America’s future.” Strangers giving money to politicians I don’t agree with are “shadowy outside interests.”
-
As noted by others, the idea that you aren’t allowed to partipate in political discourse anonymously runs counter to 250 years of American political tradition, and opens up a whole new set of problems – especially for those whose opinions and politics run counter to the status quo and currently-entrenched interests. Would you have demanded that Harvey Milk publish a list everyone who donated to his political campaigns?
-
Obama routinely attends dinners where people pay big bucks to attend … can you provide me with the complete guest lists for these?
-
While we’re at it, there are all kinds of “shadowy influencers”
[ul]
[li]Can you name the person at CNN responsible for hiring on-air talent? And the guy who hired him?[/li][li]Can you name the guy at FOX that decides whom to book for the “token liberal” spot on tonight’s panel?[/li][li]Can you name the editor at the Daily Show who clips the interview to make the respondant look stupid?[/li][li]Can you name the VP at CBS who approved “Madam Secretary” as a prime-time TV show? And the writers and producers of that show?[/ul][/li]Sure you can go look the names up on a website … but what will that mean? You now know the names of some people who have influence on the national political scene. Will this influence you thinking about anything? Do you think these people should be subject to some kind of screening?
If CNN decides to stop naming their off-air talent because they don’t want them getting harrassed, should they be compelled to publish a list?
For that matter, what if some on-air talent went anonymous? Would you legislate against “The Federalist Show, starring ‘Publius.’”
Apologies if that sounds like a million condescending questions. I wasn’t trying to do that; but it is the kind of thing that sounds like a simple solution, but in reality does open up a million questions.
Sorry, but the reason for opposing anonymity couldn’t be more obvious. They want to make these people pay for their political views.
Then that would also make Michelle Obama an outside entity unless she’s campaigning in Illinois. As well as Clinton, Warren, Romney…
look folks, the Democrats have the money advantage. They had the money advantage in 2010. And the Republicans had the money advantage in 2006. One of the nice things about low turnout elections is that the voters that come out don’t tend to be very influenced by the advertising. If they were, then the side that spent more wouldn’t be 0-2 in the last two midterms and well on their way to 0-3.
There is currently an ad being run here against Gwen Graham for the US House (and so effectively in support of Steve Southerland (R-Fucknut)). That ad is ALL about who she has worked for and who has given her campaign money (OMG! It’s NANCY PELOSI!).
It’s being run by the RNCC. Now that’s fine because I can find out who gives to the RNCC (at least at the very large levels), but what if it were run by “The American Unicorn Herder Trade Association”?
furt, I agree that there are issues to be worked out, but to answer some of your specific questions:
-
The Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers aren’t exactly an on-going tradition. The other thing I would say here is that while the application of freedom of the press to the Internet is important (even critical), it must be recognized that modern mass communications present unique issues, the ability to reach MILLIONS of people effectively instantly (and in some cases as captive* audiences) was not a scenario anticipated by the founders.
-
Not exactly, but most of those organizations ARE required to submit donor lists and thus, the type/industry/desires of people donating can often be gleaned. And ultimately, even if not, I can blame the politician for aligning with/accepting the support of that group. Politician’s can decry the support of some of these shadow groups even while getting the benefit of any opposition character assassination performed.
-
Ehhh…don’t quite see your point. I’m also not asking the AUHTA to tell me the name of the production company that made their commercial or the guy who approved it. In the case of TV shows, I can easily find (and in the case of The Daily Show already know) who is producing it and is thus responsible for its content.
*Commercials you can’t skip, ads you can’t stop, etc.
Why does it matter who is responsible? 90% of the people who watch the Daily Show I’m sure get no more or less enjoyment out of it knowing that Viacom owns it.
And likewise, the Pelosi commercial, who cares? You know it’s by someone who disagrees with you about who to vote for in that race. You don’t need to know who they are any more than you need to know who I am.
I would offer that most people would assume that Jon Stewart is primarily responsible for the content of the show. I would also offer that they would be right.
In that particular case and for me, you’re right. But, for example, if an independent were watching that commercial and found out that the KKK or someone similar had paid for all those ads, they might have less impact. I find it ironic that some of these messages are aimed at the candidate’s associations with other people when the people paying for the ad are trying very hard to hide their own associations.
It also makes it extremely difficult to determine the level, if any, of coordination with a specific campaign.
Again, it doesn’t apply to my specific example since the RNCC is a pretty well known organization and is subject to certain disclosure laws. I’m offering a more general case.
I know you can’t keep money out of politics. But if we can’t do that, we can at least require honest and full disclosure of it so we know who’s buying whom.
And no hiding behind group names like “Citizens for good government and puppies”.
You have the right to speak to the world, you do not have the right to do so with a figurative bag over your head.
As long as the politicians don’t know who is supporting them, we don’t need to either.
Hahahahahahahahaha! Whew! That’s a good one, adaher. Who says Republicans lack a sense of humor? Comedy gold that is…
Wait. You were SERIOUS about that?
Are you saying that those anonymous donors are known to the politicians? That’s strange, because there sure are a lot of politicians who want to find out who these people are.
We’ve been over this before. This is the only real solution.
Actually, if you just wanted to end advertising on TV entirely for political candidates and causes, that would probably pass SCOTUS muster today.
And I’d be all for it. It would mean low turnout elections in which only the engaged bothered to show up.
Says the guy typing under a psuedonym. 
Yes, obviously, it’s not as common a part of public discourse nowadays, but I don’t see that as a reason to get rid of the protection. It was only a few years ago that people on the left were watching the masked hero of “V for Vendetta” and saying that the film totally captured what it felt like to be a liberal during the Bush administration.
Anyway, I suppose this means you’ll be supportive when President Cruz, elected by a huge majority in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 2016, says that we can no longer let dissenters and fifth columnists undermine democracy, and that as part of Patriot Act Part II, all contributions that advance political agendas must be registered and made publically viewable. (Determining what constitutes “contributions,” “advance,” “political” and “agenda” left of course to the newly created Department of Truth. Subject to legal review, naturally; the courts will get your case on the docket just asap.)
Something like 50% of all Americans read Paine’s Common Sense in the 1770s. I don’t see how any of the changes in medium changes the principle.
No, they are not. Politicians routinely attend fundraisers – Obama has done something like 400 since taking office – and the guest lists are not usually public.
So anonymously creating and disseminating content = OK, but paying another guy to do it for me = not okay? That’s not an insignificant distinction to make, if that’s what your stance is; just trying to clarify.
I mean, I can think of a dozen ways that rule would be abused, but that’s gonna be true for any rule you create.
[QUOTE=me]
If CNN decides to stop naming their off-air talent because they don’t want them getting harrassed, should they be compelled to publish a list?
[/QUOTE]
What do you base that on?
Kennedy’s dissent. His primary beef was that some speakers were allowed and others were not, which is blatantly discriminatory. If you just ban all speakers in a medium the government has some power to control(the airwaves), then Kennedy should be okay with that.
It makes perfect sense too. I just never understood how someone can believe that letting some people run ads but banning others from doing it is somehow constitutional.
What does this have to do with GOP-supporting ads.
There are reasonable limits to speech that already exist, so limiting campaign spending isn’t some crazy thing.
Never mind that other democracies have limits on campaign donations yet still manage to have freedom.
When you basically require a license to speak, that’s not freedom of speech. What your argument basically amounts to is, “Sure, the political elites dominate discourse in the country with their media and press controls, but you’re still free! It’s not like they’ll deny you the right to get an abortion!” Oh wait, they do deny the right to abortion, or at least, like exercising your “right” to speak, you have to get government permission after the first trimester in many places in Europe. If we had such limits on abortion in the US, it wouldn’t be called a “reasonable restriction that doesn’t diminish our freedoms”, it would be a “war on women’s rights.” Well, when you claim that we can’t speak without government permission, that’s actually a war on the 1st amendment.
BTW, what’s a reasonable limit on donations? Does it just happen to be far less than it takes to run an effective ad campaign? How convenient for the elites!