Guess our local news is biased! That they would interpret GW’s comment as a specific condemnation. Or maybe I just misunderstood… nah… I recall them specifically saying that each candidate condemned the ads slamming the other.
Must be news bias (in a Democratic-run state, no less!).
Certainly, lacking access to news would entirely explain your misunderstanding. Pity you don’t have a computer.
There is absolutely no proof that the Bush campaign has anything at all to do with the Swift Vets ad, and I don’t believe they do. The sole piece of evidence the dems have offered is that (GASP!) a Republican has donated $100,000 to their cause, and he’s a TEXAS Republican! That’s pretty much it, from what I can tell. The vast majority of the funding for the Swiftvets has come from the grassroots campaign.
I’d like to hear the evidence you have for the assertion that ‘everyone knows’ the Swift Vets are a Bush campaign smear job.
On the other hand, a bigwig from MoveOn.org is now working for the Kerry campaign. Yet, I haven’t heard Bush screaming that Kerry should do something about MoveOn.
Incidentally, did Kerry break the law when he demanded that MoveOn take their ad off the air? I was under the impression that ‘527’ groups could not coordinate with a candidate in any way. Isn’t telling them to remove an ad from the air a violation of this?
I would really like to focus on the issue at hand, not just the specifics of the Swiftboat people. There are multiple threads for that… And no, I’m not talking to any one person.
I don’t waste my time on news websites or TV news. Every spare minute I have goes into a website called The Straight Dope Message Board (which I access psychically, of course); I receive my news there. But how could I expect you to know that?
How DARE you?!?
Mr. Kerry’s website says so, and every email I’ve received from his campaign headquarters says so! What more evidence do we need?
I’ve got a question for Minty or Dewey or one of the other resident lawyers:
There’s a big debate right now over whether the President or Kerry should tell these people on both sides to get their ads off the air. Kerry is calling for Bush to demand that the Swiftvets pull their ad, and Kerry has told MoveOn to remove theirs.
All issues of partisanship aside, I’d like to know if this is legal. My understanding of the ‘527’ organizations is that they could not coordinate with the official campaigns in any way. If a candidate comes out and instructs them to do something and they follow suit, is that not a violation of the law? What if a pro-Bush group comes out with an attack ad on Kerry that Bush’s advisors have decided will actually hurt Bush more, so they come out and say, “Hey you guys, get that scurrilous ad off the air!”. Legal?
I agree that it would certainly be illegal for either candidate to “demand” that a 527 org pull a specific ad. But note that Kerry is only challengeing Bush to DENOUNCE the ad, not to ask for its removal. Big differnce.
Not Kerry. Chris Matthews tonight went on about how Bush should pick up the phone and call these guys and have the ad pulled. I’m pretty sure that would be illegal.
Well, you wrote Kerry, not Chris Matthews in your post. And yeah, I heard CM say that on Hardball yesterday, but I also heard him question a few days ago whether or not that would be legal. He’s kind of all over the map on this.
Personally, I think both candidates should ignore these ads. To communicate anything at all to the organizers would violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.
It’s crazy to hear people even discussing this. CFR crossed a very dangerous line. We are now seriously discussing if the politicians currently running for US president can say certain things to certain people without breaking a law.
Free speach?
D’oh!
Free speech?
**Sam ** and Debaser, you’re misconstruing (for reasons best known to yourself) what actions are legal and what ones not. Nobody is demanding that Bush *order * or instructor *tell * anybody to do anything, as you say, and yes that doubtless would be illegal.
The suggestion is that he *express displeasure * with the ad and *request * that it be pulled, just as Kerry did with MoveOn’s ad. The organization is under no obligation to do so, though. That approach is not only legal, but proper etiquette, and (more to the point) politically advantageous if the ad has a negative effect.
Explain to me, Mr. Moto, how the First Amendment guarantees your right to buy television advertising time.
But, Spavined Gelding, in other countries the practice of requiring TV stations to provide free air time to candidates is routine. Just ask clairobscur. Why should the U.S. be any different? And the FEC doesn’t have to threaten to shoot the staton manager to enforce the rule, they just have to threaten to have the FCC pull the station’s license.
Campaign finance reform is actually favorable to the interests of people seeking election to public office. They are, after all, the ones who are stuck with the cost of the system as it is now. You think politicians like having to go around and solicit donations and raise millions of dollars every election cycle?
I won’t, because I’m not satisfied with CFR as it is now. We’ve still got the candidates going around raising money. We have to make it, not merely difficult, but impossible for anybody, including the candidates themselves, to influence the outcome of any public election by spending money on it.
And, like I said, that clearly violates the spirit of the law if not th letter of the law. The whole idea is that these 527s don’t coordinate their actions with a candidate. If one of them constantly “suggests” which ads are good and which are bad, how is that different in effect than if they meet with the organizers on a regular basis and plan ad strategy.
Which illustrates why most CFR, and this law in particular, is a waste of time. It simply does nothing to prevent what it’s supposed to prevent. It only obscures the source.
BrainGlutton, why don’t you explain to all of us how the first ammendment guarantees your right to:
- Put up a sign for a particular candidate.
- Write letters to elected officials regarding issues.
- Talk about politics at the office water cooler.
- Distribute newsletters containing political topics.
These things are all examples of first ammendment protections. Just like buying television advertising time is. What is it that people don’t understand about the wording…
Congress shall make no law…
It doesn’t say “Congress shall make no law, except with regards to television advertising, …”
Please tell me you’re not really this naive.
John, it does violate the spirit of the law, yes. But our interlocutors are asserting it violates the *letter * of the law, as their choice of words shows, and it clearly doesn’t.
I don’t have any more really good ideas about how to fix the overall problem than you do, though.