Oy, can open, worms everywhere. I caught a glimpse of a Fahrenheit 9/11 ad yesterday and IIRC it does mention Bush by name. I also recall seeing lots of things on TV mention Bush. Hell the guy is on the news nearly every day. Where can we draw a line on which is promoting/disparaging a candidate and which is simply mentioning them in connection with a different point? If it can be argued the news mentions of Bush are not about advancing/disparaging him as a candidate because the primary goal of the telecast is to inform viewers about the day’s events, then certainly it could be argued F 9/11’s mentions of Bush are not advancing/disparaging him because the primary goal of the ad is to inform viewers about an upcoming feature film.
Oh, come now, Dewey. Campaign finance reform is a long and hard road, to be sure. Money is power, it has its ways, and it is entirely likely that any sincere effort will be so many Dutch boys without sufficient thumbs.
I hold that the effort is worthy, however difficult. A citizen should not wield political power over another because he has more money. I grant you that the original framers of the Constitution did, indeed, intend to withold political power from those without property. They were wrong. Its that simple. I cannot imagine you disagree, and continue to hold you in the same degree of esteem.
Because a sincere attempt at reform can be misused is not good reason to abandon the attempt. Perhaps you could put your agile and adept mind to better purpose, perhaps you can cook up practical methods of reform that do not offer opportunity for abuse.
Yours is a keen mind, honed to sharpness at Baylor University, the Athens on the Brazos, home of the feared and dreaded Baylor Bears! Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you! Surely there is enough of the egalitarian in you to recognize that permitting a privileged political class based on nothing more meritorious than possession of money is repugnant? Very few of us Texans are more than one generation, two at most, from dirt-farmers and horse thieves.
We strive for equality in the political arena, that all voices have equal opportunity, that the wealthy have no more votes than the un-wealthy. To join in our cause does no violence to your conservative views, unless you believe that such views would fail without the unfair advantage of money. Do you lack such confidence in your opinion? I think not. I trust I am not wrong. If you do not see this as a commendation for your integrity and honorable intent, then you misunderstand.
As Barry Goldwater said “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend!”
Each political party only gets to silence one movie per twelve month period. Extremist Republicans can only blame themselves for using it on the CBS movie about Reagan.
If they were to be successful in this, I wonder if Dems will claim that Barnes and Noble should be sanctioned for displaying copies of Bush at War, what with the Commander in Chief looking so proud and fearless on the cover and all.
Except that I’m not sure how many people believe McCain-Feingold was a “sincere” attempt at campaign finance reform. Endless scenarios, equivalent to the one at hand here, were forseen by the opponents of McCain-Feingold. Yet the Congress critters refused to fix the obvious problems in their ardency to be seen as “Doing Something.” And that is the reason I say this wasn’t a “sincere” attempt. They knew exactly how this particular aspect of McCain-Feingold could be exploited.
Eh, don’t really care about this particular law or its inevitable loopholes. Even leaving aside the idea of exemptions for “news” programs(where does something like 60 Minutes fall? The Andy Rooney section of 60 Minutes is pretty clearly opinion-oriented as opposed to factual journalism. If Rooney mentioned one of the candidates how should it be adjudicated?) there are tons and tons of things that mention the President and are not connected to his campaign. Likewise for Kerry. There is almost certainly a hope within Moore that his film, and possibly the advertising thereof, will harm Bush politically. Still the obvious goal of advertising the film is advertising the film.
I think you’re exactly correct. It’s litigation for the sake of litigation, because it’s expensive, time consuming, and makes people think twice about crossing someone even if the law exonorates the putative offender.
Both Dems and Pubs pull stunts like this. To me, the big issue is litigial frivolity and its use as a form of harassment, and how there doesn’t appear to be any mechanism to prevent this behavior.
I take you at your word, Unc. But, save having faith in your capacity to peer into Mr. McCains mind and soul, and inventory the contents thereof, I think you are obligated to provide some sort of proof of your contention. Sens. McCain and Feingold knew they were foisting bad law onto the Republic? Or was the law, as passed, merely the best they could get at the time?
By comparison, the first Civil Rights Act of 1964 was largely useless, so much watering down, so much pandering to “State’s Rights” effectively neutered it. But it was a start, it established the principle as being accepted - that the Federal government had a crucial stake in protecting the rights of its citizens, and the overiding obligation to do so. The legislation was more important for the principle it established than for the actual force of law it engendered, which was, for the most part, negligible.
Good intentions are exploited by the malign every day. The challenge is not answered by abandoning the effort, but by honing and sharpening the law. With the enthusiastic support of such inventive and creative minds as yours, and the estimable Dewey, how can we fail?
But if you turn us away, if you will not enlist in a cause that ought to be entirely non-partisan, then you support the status quo by default. It is our contention that the status quo is unacceptable. Do you disagree?
What was it the road to hell was paved with again?
The campaign finance cure is worse than the disease. It cannot be seriously implemented without doing damage to, IMO, far more vital free speech principles. Far better to simply require full disclosure of the source of all campaign funds, and let the donors give to whomever and in whatever quantities that they may.
If Moore prevails before the FEC, we will simply see a spate of “documentaries” about candidates advertised in such a way as to influence voters. A loophole – and a predictable loophole at that – will have been found. If he loses…well, I think that’s damaging to notions of free expression, don’t you?
The wealthy do have the same votes as the un-wealthy. Everyone is equal at the ballot box.
CFR does violence to free speech principles, and thus advocacy of both liberal and conservative views. For example, when Hillary Clinton was first running for the Senate, campaign finance was a big issue, so much so that the candidates were asking issue advocacy organizations to refrain from advertising. To their everlasting credit, NARAL – hardly a conservative organ – turned Ms. Clinton down, pointing out quite correctly that they could not effectively push on their issue (abortion) without encouraging the election of candidates like Ms. Clinton who were favorable to them on that issue.
Indeed. And let them bloom without the shackles of government regulation. CFR seeks to kill such flowers, rather than encouraging their growth.
Moore’s title is a reference to Ray Bradbury’s classic, Fahrenheit 451, set in a future where the government burns books and discourages the citizens from thinking. Considering the censorship theme to the original, Moore’s choice of title for his movie may have been prophetic in more ways than he intended.
McCain-Feingold is a travesty, and I was really surprised that the Supreme Court let it stand (and I bet a lot of politicians who voted for it were surprised too).
The problem with political ads isn’t that there’s too much free speech going on, it’s that (apparantly) a significant portion of the american public gets their voting information from 30-second spots between NYPD Blue segments. No law is going to fix the apathy and willful ignorance of a large number of voters.
Well, so much for retaining a respectful posture regarding the opinions of one’s political opponents. Perhaps, in the future, you will be so kind as not to bemoan the lack of civility amongst the left, until you can find some within yourself. If not a kindly gesture, it would at least be less hypocritical, a step in the right direction on such a long, long road.
As to your suspicions about the fundamental source of my opinions, you are welcome to them. I mildly regret that you find them so frightening that you cannot engage them honestly, and are reduced to ad hominem sneers.
That would be “good intentions”? Shall we spend our time impressing each other with our command of pithy quotes from Bartlett’s, or concentrate on the matter at hand?
It is precisely about such free speech principles. It is about holding those principles secure from corruption, to the extent that is possible. It is not enough to merely protect the right to speak, if the right to be heard is reserved for the rich and the powerful. Free speech principles are already being violated. So long as speech can be purchased, it is not free.
Is this what troubles you so? That Dow Chemical and General Dynamics might be muzzled, while cigar-chomping labor bosses run amock? I dare to put forth a radical suggestion: that only people have First Amendment rights, corporate entities are not so entitled. Or is it your contention that such as these are unfailingly devoted to the public benefit, unselfishly striving for the common weal? I think even the most cursory familiarity with history would disabuse you of such a fanciful notion.
Without question, an undertaking like campaign finance reform is fraught with difficulties. Honest and vigorous input from both major camps is desireable, the assistance of sharp and able minds, needful. I regret that some of those minds will not be available unless a check with an appealing number of zeroes is proferred.
Our body politic is corrupted by money, its influence is pernicious and destructive. Something must be done. That “something” will be difficult, make no mistake. Until we can affect such a change, a parliament of whores is all we can expect. It won’t do, it simply won’t do.
We need concensus, we need a collective bridge-building, we need sharp and agile minds, such as yours. But if you will not lead, cannot follow, would you at least get out of the way?
Name one point where I used an ad hominem against you. Quote one instance where I questioned your motivations. Really, I want to hear this. If you’re going to levy such accusations, you ought to back them up.
You’re taking a shot at me for using a pithy quote? Take a look in the mirror, buddy. Pot, kettle, etc. :rolleyes:
So we’ve got to limit free speech in order to promote it? My, what doubleplusgood solution. Akin to burning the village to save it.
You confuse “free as in speech” with “free as in beer,” to use an open-source canard.
I’m actually far more concerned about the muzzling of issue advocacy groups, but yes, I’m concerned about the muzzling of business interests as well. Since they (and thus, the many individuals who work for them and who own them as shareholders) are the often the target of government regulation, it is absurd that they shouldn’t have the ability to help those candidates they find favorable. Populist rhetoric aside, they deserve to participate in the process as much as any other group of likeminded people.
And those union bosses actually carry more influence than corporations, because they have something more valuable than money: members who vote the union line without hesitation. Votes count for a lot more than dollars in American politics. As Barney Frank (D-MA) puts it regarding another issue advocacy group, “People on the left make the mistake of saying the NRA’s power is big money. Votes beat money any day, and the NRA has votes. I tell gay and lesbian groups that the NRA is the model that all advocacy groups should use.”
Of course, corporations have long since been forbidden from directly donating to campaigns, restricting their contributions either to PACs or to direct contributions through their individual executives. And of course, the issue at hand has little to do with the First Amendment rights of corporations, and everything to do with the First Amendment rights of issue advocacy groups – groups like the NRA, AARP, NARAL, the Sierra Club, and others. Because the 30/60 day rule was expressly crafted to muzzle them at the very time they do their most important work – right before a convention or election.
Don’t be ridiculous. You don’t have to think a corporation or issue advocacy group is perfectly benevloent in order to believe their rights are worth protecting. I’m no fan of much of what NARAL and the Sierra Club promotes, but I don’t believe in muzzling them. I’m no Nazi, but I thought it right and proper to allow them to march in Skokie. Just because you find an enterprise malevolent is no reason to curtail their rights.
Everyone says this like it’s received wisdom. Just once, I’d like to see it backed up with actual evidence.
What was that you were saying earlier about pithy quotes from Bartlett’s?
Of course, I might have misunderstood, it is entirely possible that “talking out of your ass” is considered high praise in the circles you frequent. That is, after all, where the wallet is kept, is it not?
Your word choice is revealing. They are the “target” of government regulation. That dastardly government regulation, which fails to recognize the privatization of air, water, and other random elements of the so-called “environment”. The environment…the purple majesties, and all that…are held in common, they are fundamentally ours. Is it wise to permit persons motivated solely by profit to have free rein over its use, and abuse? Look closely when environmental regulations are suggested, look at who most vociferously oppose the regulations which seek our protection. Follow the money, and whom do you find at the other end?
But, of course, you already know that, don’t you? Thankfully, we are well past the days when a river can be so utterly befouled as to actually catch fire. Is it your contention that we have the corporate benefactors of the Pubbies to thank for that happy state of affairs? Or we of the tree-hugging, granola-munching set?
I have no intention of putting “populist rhetoric” aside. It is entirely valid rhetoric, as the very name implies. It’s about people, is it not? And of course they have the right to participate, no one has suggested otherwise. As people. You firmly and forthrightly rebuke a position I do not hold, and have not advanced.
I think if you actually go to the trouble to investigate that, you will find that not as axiomatic as you make out. At any rate, of course they do! 1,000 workers assert thier economic needs and wants against 10 owners, my sympathy is with them. Yours, it would appear, are not. Clearly your free choice to make, but not yours to enforce.
They do? What, then, accounts for such odd behavior as the headlong pursuit of those very same dollars? Are they misguided? Confused?
A splendid fellow. Got a pair a bullfighter would admire. And his point is well taken, as regards tactics. His goals, however, are more in line with mine own than with yours, as you probably already know.
It does? Perhaps so, since I insist that corporations have no First Amendment rights at all. Being not people, you see. I’ll clarify that for you further, if need be. Advise.
At last, you bring your firepower to bear on the worthy issue: how best to craft these regulations. I am entirely willing to enter into collaboration with you, and those like you, in order to cobble together the best possible regulation. I am better than half convinced that the regulation you point to is not needful, and may even, indeed, be hurtful. Open to discussion, repair, or, if need be, revocation.
I have expressed several times that desire for bi-partisan collaboration, expressions that have, thus far, met only your scorn and derision. However much you might like the process of compromise to be made of concessions from my side met with gracious acceptance from yours, that is more akin to surrender than negotiation.
On this point we are in entire agreement. The ACLU infuriates me almost daily, I gnash my teeth with vexation every time I write them a check. You write them checks, friend Dewey? Not that its germane, merely a matter of curiosity.
Well, of course it is! Point of fact, a malevolent enterprise is precisely that enterprise which is most needful of having its rights curtailed, if not flung away altogether! Isn’t that why we have prisons? (I suspect you crafted this sentence hurriedly, it doesn’t show your usual concern for clarity and relevence. Lets pass it over lightly then, shall we?)
“We hold these truths to be self-evident…” As do I.
Indulge, if you will, a bit of over-simplification, for the sake of clarity. Observe the last election (which is, no doubt, as fresh in your mind as it is in mine). We agree, do we not, that it shows an electorate as evenly split as any we’ve ever known, a rival to the famous 1960 Kennedy VS Swamp Thing election. You are aware, I’m sure, that one side of the recent election had vastly more money than the other, hence, had that much more access, that much more raw persuasive power.
Now, since it is evident that this advantage does not derive directly from the population, which was evenly split, from whence does this advantage derive? And why should we tolerate that it should be so?
Given that the two sides have roughly equal numbers of people, how is it just and meet that one side have such an advantage of money? If your opposition is entirely based on the methods of correction, we have a worthy basis for dialogue and compromise. But if you object to the pursuit of simple justice, we do not.
Is your objection entirely about the process for correction, the wisdom of each seperate rule? Well, then, let’s discuss it, let’s put agile minds to work, and seek a creative and just set of such regulations. I not only invite the participation of my political opposition, I hold that it would not be valid without such participation. Will such a process be difficult, and vexing, strewn with false-starts and failed propositions? Undoubtedly. Is it nonetheless needful? Equally so.
I see that, yet again, friend elucidator makes up in verbosity that which he woefully lacks in solid facts and rigorous logic. Lacking the patience of Job, I will try to be brief.
First of all, look up the meaning of “ad hominem.” I was saying the facts underlying your argument were made up. That is not the same as substituting a personal attack in lieu of addressing the argument at hand.
Secondly, I couldn’t help but note your complete silence on the question I raised in that post. I’m still waiting to hear upon what grounds you feel the 1964 Act was toothless legislation.
This is not a discussion about the propriety of any given bit of environmental legislation. It is a discussion about the ability to participate in the formation of environmental policy. Businesses, seeing as they have to bear the actual costs of environmental regulation, have every bit of the right to participate in the selection of representatives as do those on the environmentalist side of the table.
Because, of course, the workers are always right and the owners are always wrong. Sheesh. :rolleyes:
It’s actually the headlong pursuit of votes, with dollars being but one part of the equation. And important part, yes, but not the only part. Groups like the AARP and the NRA exert influence far beyond the size of their campaign spending by moblizing people to go to the voting booths.
Do clarify how issue advocacy groups, which look out for one narrow interest of their constituent members, differ materially from corporations, who look out for one narrow interest (namely, economic) of their constituent shareholders.
Sorry, on principles of free speech I do tend to be rather inflexible. Essential liberty, and so forth.
My charitable contributions are none of your goddamned buisiness, frankly. Nor does your willingness to write checks make your argument any more cogent.
Thus spake the Village of Skokie.
We don’t lock people up for expressing ideas. Nor, judging by the frequency with which we hear from Mumia Abu-Jamal, do we strip them of their first amendment rights when we send them to prison.
Neither this nor the tripe that followed answered the actual question asked: what is the evidence for this rampant corruption? Simply pointing to disparities in fundraising is not suficient evidence to support that assertion.
That is good. A man should be mindful of his limitations.
Sorry, was this what you had in mind as regards brevity? A sidebar gloss on the precise meaning of the phrase? I mean it, of course, in the larger, less constrained sense of insulting the arguer rather than addressing the argument. Your correction is duly noted, and given all the consideration it deserves.
Much more of a hi-jack than I’m willing to entertain. Another time, perhaps. If you wish to take that as some sort of victory, it would be churlish of me to deny you this crumb of satisfaction.
The distinction is too subtle for me. But, yes, just so, it is precisely that. Are you intending to frame your argument entirely by agreeing with me? Commendable, to be sure, but rather weak as to tactics.
The dreadful burden of the “actual costs” is onerous, to be sure. But the profits of such exploitation are secured by the few, whereas the environment is shared by all. Do you see a definite committment by corporate America to place such concerns above the self-interest of profit? Those that do are to be commended, and I would be first and foremost to do so, even if I have to elbow you aside to sing praises. And, of course, those that do not must be brought to heel. By regulations, since depending on their good will and citizenship seems ineffective.
Getting tired, are you, lad? You seem to get surly when you tire. You knew, even as you wrote it, that I said no such thing. If you fire your estimable ammunition where I’m actually standing, it might be useful. Certainly, it would be briefer, if restrained by relevence. Just a hint from your old Uncle e.
Well, then, if its important, then it must be important that such power be justly apportioned, no? Precisely to the extent equal to its importance, regardless of what we might determine that relative importance to be.
Precisely because those interests are narrow. And, please, cease attempting to make shareholders some sort of populist entity. Shareholders invest in an entity, groups like the AARP and labor unions are the entity.
Nobly spoken. At the next town meeting, when General Dynamic rises to announce its daughter’s wedding, and express its political view, I will tell it that you are mindful of its needs. Doubtless, it will remember you in its prayers.
Goodness! Seem to have struck a nerve. I did stress, did I not, that my question was the merest curiosity? Frankly, I would not have been that surprised to hear that you had, as I take your committment to 1st Amendment rights to be as sincere as my own. Misguided, but sincere.
Then what is? If, as has been demonstrated, the numbers of actual citizens on both sides of the issues is roughly even? I would not be so insulting as to suggest that your sanguine approval of the status quo derives from approval of such an unjust advantage, but you supply no other.
That “rather than addressing the argument” is key, seeing how I did address your argument, and you have failed to respond.
I’m just trying to end your ceaseless hijacking by bringing up specific examples of environmental legislation. That’s like bringing up specific tax bills when discussing the general truth of “no taxation without representation.” The issue isn’t what particular policy choices are correct, but rather the right to have a voice in deciding those policy choices.
It’s easy to write checks with other people’s money.
I never suggested that environmental regulations were not a necessary and proper sphere for government action, although we could dispute the scope and necessity of any number of specific legislative acts. Indeed, I agree that it is. As you would say, are you intending to frame your argument entirely by agreeing with me? Commendable, to be sure, but rather weak as to tactics.
Environmental concerns should always be balanced against economic concerns, and to that end those who have to bear the burden of environmental regulation should be afforded the ability to help shape the composition of legislative bodies. That’s the real issue: not that corporations are universally pro-environment, but rater that they are impacted by those regulations and should thus be allowed the same access to the electoral process as their environmentalist counterparts.
You wrote “1,000 workers assert thier economic needs and wants against 10 owners, my sympathy is with them.” Well, my sympathy depends on the specific need or want asserted, and the costs of meeting that need or want. My knee doesn’t jerk like yours does.
Sort of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, eh?
Poppycock. Shareholders invest because they believe management will give them a return – i.e., that management will look after their economic interests. AARP members write their checks for much the same reason.
:rolleyes:
What do you earn in a year? While you’re at it, why don’t you send me your last 1040? Some questions aren’t asked in polite company.
Besides, this is borderline ad hominem: you are using implied assumptions about my financial conduct as a means of suggesting I’m not really committed to free speech. That, of course, has nothing to do with the substance of my argument for free speech itself. My support or lack thereof personally doesn’t alter the actual argument I put forth.
Disparities in fundraising just show a disparity in resources. It doesn’t show corruption. It could just as well be (and, in fact, I believe this to largely be the case) that money follows the candidate, rather than the other way around – money flows to candidates already predisposed to believe in policies advantageous to the donor, rather than candidates violating their own principles in order to satisfy donors.
Of course it is. But the issue is not so much having a voice, but one voice being louder than another. By reason of money. Sorry, have I not been clear about that?
Perhaps. Is it easier to breathe somebody else’s air?
You keep seeking to frame the argument around the groundless canard that I hope to deny participation to such as these. Not in the slightest. On the other hand, I will not tolerate their having a bigger place at the table, simply because of their check-writing skills.
Not the same knee, no. Still jerks. Apparently you operate on the assumption that I am mindlessly doctrinaire, and you are the soul of sweet reason. It must be pretty to think so.
Something like that. Also rather fond of that “do unto others” homily, as proferred by that other anti-establishment revolutionary. (No, it wasn’t Che…) If you think I’d be embarrassed by such, think again. “Love thy neighbor, everything else is commentary” also works well enough.
I had no idea! You mean AARP members get dividends on thier investment, depending of the profits? Or do you mean to suggest that all corporations are lobbying enterprises? Actually, what the heck are you talking about?
Well, thank you, Miss Manners.
Oh, pshaw! I made it entirely clear that the question was asked from idle curiosity, with no offense intended or implied. I’m perfectly willing to respect your dignity, but I’m not going to genuflect and kiss the hem of your garment every ten words just to keep from you from imagining some slur.
At last we get to it, across the tortured path! Indeed, you are quite correct, it is hard to deny such an obvious tautology. Disparities in fundraising do, exactly that, reflect a disparity in resources. Which results in a disproportionate and unjust disparity in political power. That is the sum of my argument, nothing more, nothing less. What does corruption, or the lack thereof, have to do with anything?
Which affects precisely nothing. I care not in the slightest whether or not GeeDubya is sincerely devoted to plutocracy, or merely the mindless running dog of the ruling class. Why should I? For that matter, why do you?
For all your squirming, the fundamental fact remains: one party has a disproportionate advantage in money. Now, if as you seem to imply, this disproportion was directly attributable to a disproportion in the loyalty and faith of the electorate, that would be entirely acceptable. But this is not the case, and you have not disputed that, despite any number of invitations to do so. Point of fact, you seem quite determined to avoid it.
For any political view to have more access to the means of persuasion, simply because of the economic resources of its adherents are more plentiful, does violence to the very idea of political equality. You would not accept that one political party should dominate because it was better armed. Why, then, would you accept money as a dominant factor? If, as you seem to claim, you are as committed as I to free speech and political parity of all citizens, why are you willing to accept this disparity in power? How do you justify it?
Elucidator, I suppose that since the War on Drugs has been an abject failure in every practical sense yet still well intentioned, you support it just as surely as CFR.
CFR never will be practiacally executed, and this is no time to lose sight of pragmatism in public policy. People always have opinions, and people will always find ways to express those opinions. Money helps, but you cannot truly spend your way into the hearts and minds of the voters. The NRA and AARP, as stated by others in this thread, are excellent examples of this.
I think it is insane that you don’t think that corporations should even have the right to make any sort of public statement or arguement.
In short:
Labor=Good
Corporations=Evil and wrong, always and forever
Conclusion: Trash the 1st Amendment
