What’s the call, is there a case here, or is it just more politics?
From skimming the story, it would seem to me that they would have a helluva time proving that the Kerry campaign had anything to do with the advertisements, and I can’t see the courts proclaiming that any group speaking out against a campaign is considered the same as the opposing campaign. O_o
It may be a nice loophole in “soft money,” but AFAICT, it is not illegal, unless Kerry’s campaign funded or produced them.
My first thought was “Gee, they’re gonna try to intimidate anti-Bush groups and declare “anyone but Bush” ads illegal.”
Not surprising. Not sure it’s illegal, though.
Hhhmmm very convenient timing ?
Wouldn’t this legal action go against freedom of expression ? As long as these groups only oppose Bush and don’t “directly” endorse Kerry it would be expressing discontent.
Even if they are forbidden to mention the great, wise leader. Could they just complain about current conditions, the Iraq War, unemployement without mentioning Bush ?In the grand tradition of fighting ignorance at the SDMB, if the Bush-Cheney campaign is making these allegations, then the onus is on them to provide evidence and/or cites to support their claims.
If there aren’t any (and so far I haven’t heard of anything other than accusations being tossed about), then we declare them to be a bunch of lying poopie-heads and roast 'em in the BBQ Pit.
I’m rooting for the Bushies on this one. Well no, I’m not. Fuck them. But I do agree that this is a loophole of immense proportions. What good is regulating the campaigns if supporters of one side or the other are free to pour unregulated money into the race so long as they refrain from coordinating with their prefered candidate?
How are you pooring money in without coordinating?
Are you suggesting that we suspend the rights of an organization to make political statements during a campaign period?
Wasn’t the infamous “Willie Horton” ad produced by precisely such a group, except on the Republican side, thus allowing Roger Ailes to attempt to claim that the Bush campaign wasn’t responsible for it?
This is the law of unintended consequences in action. You can thank McCain-Feingold for this.
It’s also no surprise that Al Gore is starting up a TV network, and that liberal activists have started a new radio network. If you can’t contribute to a candidate, what’s the next best way to help him win? Well, how about starting a radio or TV network with the goal of essentially 24/7 advertising? It doesn’t matter if it makes money - the whole point is to get the message out.
So now we have Al Gore starting a TV cable channel, and liberal activists starting a new radio network. We’ve got ‘527’ organizations essentially being mouthpieces for the various campaigns.
And lest you think I’m being partisan about this, back when we were debating campaign finance reform I predicted that the Republicans would do more of this stuff than the Democrats. How would you guys feel if, say, Newt Gingrich announced the formation of a new conservative TV station a few months before the election, and ran puff pieces in favor of George Bush and hit pieces on John Kerry the whole time?
So what we have is campaign finance reform, which was intended to ‘open up’ contributions to politicians so we could see who was pulling their strings, having the effect of driving the real contributions so far underground that we can no longer even tell what it looks like. Great.
I have no idea what you are saying here but I must say you are saying it quite cleverly. “Pooring money” indeed. Nice!
I don’t believe so.
checks previous post
Nope, I sure didn’t. Sorry.
You think so? Not me. I’m sure there are some innocents out there somewhere who actually were fooled into believing the law could limit the flow of unlimited money into political campaigns but I would be amazed if that group included any of its creators. McCain-Feingold is just another step. It’s designed to plug the loophole left by the last round of campaign finance reform. Of course the money is going to keep flowing. The challenge now is to take the next step and plug this hole, which in turn will create a new one. Given our political system this is bound to be a long and arduous process. The first step was taken by the federal government back in 1867.
Sam, you are 100% correct.
That was the main complaint against McCain-Feingold when it was being debated. Is it an infringement on freedom of speech? Absolutely. What’s the solution or how do we fix it? Wish I knew.
And just how many free speech rights are you willing to give up for this? So what’s the next step? If you’re a ‘media organization’ you have to open your books publically even if you’re a private organization? Some sort of new equal-access requirement that forces magazines like The Nation to have to allow equal editorial content for the right?
When will people learn that when you use the law to squash freedom, you just create the type of chain reaction that you describe, requiring ever-more restrictions to correct all the loopholes and unintended consequences?
Not very many. But as you are aware many of us over here on the left don’t equate paid advertisement with free speech.
Hey, I came up with a way to beat the Electoral College; I think I’m pulling my weight over here. I can’t be expected to produce breakthroughs on every problem. I’m not sure where the next step leads. I don’t spend much time thinking about campaign finance reform. I agree that the 527 gambit does take us backwards in that we no longer know who is paying for some political ads. I’d say more transparancy there is likely to happen.
You say that like it’s a bad thing! The partial remedies are preferable so long as the original problem outweighs the negative consequences of the solutions. We are unlikely to ever eliminate murder, for example, yet somehow I doubt you will bitch about our lack of freedom to go around killing folks.
What are you, from the middle ages or something? The point of news is not to make accurate accusations, but just to get one group of words associated with other groups of words. For instance “Bush… stupid.” “Kerry… French” “Clarke… perjury” People don’t read stories closely enough to care about refutations or explosed nonsense. All they recall are the buzzwords.
Trying… to… contain… painfully… obvious… observation…
Oh, that was the idiocy of the past. Don’t worry, I’m sure someone will come up with some shiny NEW campaign finance reform idiocy.
I’m not unsympathetic to the problem. It really does come down to the problem that whoever has more money is generally going to win a lot more of the time and basically frame issues the way they want, and that is sort of messed up, massively distorting the idea that everyone has an equal voice. I just have yet to hear any sort of workable solution since, oh, I dunno, let’s say 1867. Democracy and liberal science definately have an enemy in the accumulation of wealth. I’m just not sure what the solution is.
I’ve had sympathies for Bush for a while(or at least cut him a lot more slack then most people).
But this is one of the things that is keeping him from getting my vote in November.
Still not going to vote for Kerry, but Bush just keeps pushing it.
Huh? OH, oh, you mean like FOX News? Hmm, what’s that guy’s name … Roger Ailes? You mean the “Willie Horton” guy now runs an entire network devoted to propping up the Bush administration?
Far out, man! Who’d’a thunk it!
Even being anti-Bush I see these 527 groups as more representative than a few big money donors as regards the general population.
Plugging these means that only big money will have a say in elections ? I like the idea of more people actively participating in elections and smaller groups have wider range of people in them.OK,OK, even though the idea of campaign finance laws can be debated on principle, when I said “case” I meant a legal case.
Are the Republicans likely to win the case? Are they just trying to get a restraining order with a frivolous lawsuit? What’s the call?
What Rashak said. 500 individuals each tossing in $2,000 says a lot more to me than one millionare tossing in 1,000,000.
rj: 500 individuals each tossing in $2,000 says a lot more to me than one millionare tossing in 1,000,000.
Still, at some point we’re really gonna need some sort of, whaddyacallit, “bright line” to distinguish between “representative public opinion” and “media spin by the powerful”. And any arbitrary group size or contribution limit that we use to make that distinction is disturbing because it’s so, well, arbitrary.