FEC complaint filed on Fahrenheit 9/11

The former, at the very least, appears to be a well-supported view based on your history here.

Yes, and thou dost protest too much. If idle curiosity was what was driving you, you could have asked the question via private email rather than in a public forum. You weren’t sating your curiosity, you were making an underhanded point.

I don’t ask for genuflection. I only ask for a debate free of ad hominems, either direct or implied. That you, like any skilled polemicist, are capable of taking such potshots while maintaining the pretense of civility doesn’t change the substance of what you’re doing. I called you on it here, and I’ll call you on it in the future.

Thus spake elucidator: “Our body politic is corrupted by money, its influence is pernicious and destructive.” An assertion, as I noted, that is treated as though it is received wisdom, but nobody ever provides actual evidence for. If you’re going to talk about corruption, you should provide evidence thereof.

One wonders how far we run with this idea. The average KKK member does not harken from the upper classes. They are certainly at an economic disadvantage, even on a per-capita basis. Shall we restrict the rights of other political groups so that they can have a voice equal to their number?

Because the Constitution does not mandate radical egalitarianism. It mandates that the government refrain from acting in certain areas, including free speech. Freedom and radical egalitarianism are fundamentally incompatible.

According to you. The evidence you offer is that it “appears” (ah! what a wonderland of implication can be tucked into that word!) to be “well-supported”. Again, according to you.

You have a number of obvious, and admirable, skills. The day that you include mind-reading amongst them, please advise.

Such as your “talking out of your posterior”. Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm you ain’t.

What, I am alone in this deranged assessment? Wild-eyed, radical e. makes a baseless charge, a wholly unsubstantiated assessment, one worthy of scorn and derision because no one of any substance, any real awareness, would echo such a complaint? This is the first you’ve heard of it? Mr. McCain’s credentials do not pass muster?

Would you like to stake your entire argument on that? That I cannot march a battallion of quotes from worthy men past your eyes?

As you say, corporations and corporate lobbyists donate money because they expect results, they are businessmen, investing in governance because they expect a return on their investment. Would they continue to do so if they didn’t get such a return? Because they are simply bursting with civic virtue, eager to put their profits in the service of the Republic? As a fairy tale, the Hungry, Hungry Caterpillar is far more believable.

Pure sophistry. As I’m sure you already know, the KKK as a force has virtually ceased to exist. As well, if it were worth the effort, one could challenge your assessment of thier per capita wealth, an assertion you could not prove to save your soul. Where, indeed, would you gain reliable information? But it is a mere distraction, as unworthy of an answer as it was asserting.

The nub of it is your phrasing “restrict the rights”. You cling to this notion like a drowning man clutching a floating spar. Gasp! you cry in dismay, rights are to be restricted. But, of course, rights already are restricted, one famously cannot shout “Theater!” in a crowded fire. Hate speech is restricted, slander and libel are restricted.

But it does, almost inadvertently, speak to the crux of the issue: does any person, or collection of persons, have an unrestricted right to more access to political power based solely on their possession of, and access to, money?

One cannot be entirely certain of your stance on this, you make your case entirely in the negative, by criticizing mine. Is it your contention that such a state of affairs is just and correct? Is it fair and meet that George Soros has vastly more political power than the humble Dewey? I think not. Do you disagree?

I would that you state yourself plainly on this, a feat that, for all your rhetorical skills (and an admirable array they are, too) you seem either unable, or unwilling, to perform.

Oh, come now! Are you going to take shelter there, beneath the unchanging and inviolate Constitution? As if you didn’t know better? Certainly you do not pine for a return to the Golden Age, when only white men of property were permitted to vote?

And what, pray, is so “radical” about egalitarianism? Have we not amended the Constituion on more than one occassion for precisely that end? Frankly, I had always thought that egalitarianism was the whole point of the excercise. Tom Paine, Common Sense, “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” All just “radical egalitarianism”, to be brushed aside by more realistic, more pragmatic folk? Such as, in this instance, yourself?

Is it egalitarianism itself that you find so “radical”? Or only the extent to which the insanely radical e. seeks to extend it? Having faith that you are, finally, a man of good will, I do not suggest that you support discrimination based on race, that is anathema to us all.

Yet you are willing to insist that the possession of money is somehow sacrosanct, beyond the grubby hand of regulation (oh! sorry! “restriction” is the favored word…) Why? Divine right? Has the Lord, in His wisdom, channeled wealth into the hands of the wise and the just, that the rest of us should tug our forelock and obey? Why is the advantage of wealth somehow Constitutionally valid, when the advantage of race is not?

One needn’t be a mindreader to recognize a common tactic of the polemicist. Again, if you were really curious about my personal financial choices, you could have asked in privately very easy. You elected to do so in a public forum. That speaks volumes.

Again: noting that you are making up facts out of whole cloth is not an ad hominem attack.

Oh, no, that’s my point entirely. People like you and Mr. McCain and lots of others scream about the corruption of the system, and everyone takes it like received wisdom. Yet no one ever seems to bother going to the trouble to actually produce evidence of that fact. It is just assumed to be true, partially because it is politically convenient and partially because it is hip to be cynical about politics. Much like the emperor’s new clothes, everyone claims it exists but rarely do we actually see it.

As I’ve noted, it is not corrupt if money follows the politicians, rather than the other way around. Of course donors expect certain results: people expect certain results from the Naderites of the world, too, and they open their wallets accordingly.

It matters not whether businesses act out of civic virtue or simple profit motive, just as it matters not whether environmentalists act out of virtuous caring for the environment or because they’re fussy busybodies who like to tell others what to do. Each has a right to participate in the process, regardless of what their ulterior motives may be.

If you dislike the KKK, insert any similarly radical group you care to mention. There are any number of radical groups that take their numbers from society’s disaffected (read: poor). Do we take away free speech rights until the poorest and most disaffected of fringe groups has equal media purchasing power on a per capita basis?

But, of course, you’re a smart guy; you surely recognize the substance of the argument I’m making. I note this is a favored tactic of your, 'luce: when an argument inconvenient to your thesis arises, you simply dismiss it as unworthy. Do try not to disappoint me next time out.

Yes, there are exceptions to everything. But political speech – participation in the political process – is the very heart of the first amendment. To restrict that participation is anathamatic to everything the first amendment – indeed, everything the American democratic experiment – is all about. The answer to problematic speech isn’t restricting that speech. It is more speech.

They have the unrestricted right (or, technically, should have the right) to communicate their views as widely as they can manage. That may or may not lead to political power. Ask Steve Forbes or Michael Huffington.

I think I’ve plainly stated my opposition to campaign finance laws in general. I favor the mandatory public disclosure of all campaign donors, both direct and indirect, and that’s it. If Senator Smith is in the pocket of General Dynamics, the voters can decide if that is of concern to them or not.

And to answer your question above, George Soros can do what he wants with his resources. It’s no skin off my nose. That is only fair. As pleasant as the thought of gagging Ted Turner may be, I cannot bring myself to wish to restrict his rights, either.

Seems to have worked pretty well so far.

If you’d like to propose amending the constitution to weaken the first amendment’s protection of political speech, you are more than welcome to try. That would be more honest than jamming a square peg into the round hole, as CFR currently requires.

Money is the means by which expression is broadcast. Preventing me from taking out an ad in the New York Times isn’t much different than preventing me from speaking my message in the first instance. Without money, we can’t distribute our newsletters, talk on TV and radio, or pay our web hosting providers. Without money, we’re just shouting at a blank wall.

  1. See the 14th amendment.
  2. Wealth is not a genetic trait, your “Kennedys at Hyannisport” images notwithstanding.

Piffle. Says nothing at all, save that you are prickly concerning your own dignity, and rather stingy in the giving. I stated that I was only curioius, as I said, I would not have been that surprised to hear you supported the ACLU. The statement was sincere, believe what you will.

I suppose, technically so. I tend to regard it as such when someone states that I am making shit up. As compared to “noting”. Just a country boy, after all, but to my unsophisticated ear, that does sound awfully close to “liar”. I put it to you, sir, that the distinction between calling someone a liar and an ad hominem attack is too measly for grown men to consider.

By the way, shouldn’t the Latin phrase be italicized? That means I win, right?

I see. So, then, you deny categorically and without demur that any legislation ever passes through the bowels of Congress that favors the interests of a given industry to the detriment of the common weal? Or that such legislation has such benign consideration due to the funds available to its beneficiarys?

My, what fine distinctions the trained mind is capable of! But your constant demand for proof of corruption buggers the question. Certainly, the money that is proferred with such civic-minded generosity to the Republicans is motivated entirely by political philosophy. No one mentioned the issue of “corrupt” sales of votes but you. It is your bug-bear, ride it as long as you like. It is entirely irrelevent to my argument.

However valid the political philosophy being offered, an unjust advantage remains simply that. If one side of a debate can purchase more of the means of persuasion, they have an advantage. However much I might find that agreeable as a partisan, as a citizen, I am duty bound to reject it. As are you.

Well, of course, it matters. But one simply won’t inflate that word choice beyond its intent. Wouldn’t be right.

But you keep trying to pretend that the dastardly e. cravenly seeks to prevent participation by his political opponents. I say again, and hope this sinks in: I do not seek to hinder participation, nor would I. I seek to remove unfair advantage, which is not the same thing no matter how many times you conflate the two. You are comparing apples and orangutans.

I fear nothing short of the most abject and humble admission of the superiority of your argument will do. Which I might be pleased to do, being a good hearted and accomodating sort of fellow. But it ain’t so.

Fair enough! If that’s the route you wish to take, and can offer a practicable means of realizing it, I’m on board. Rather than restricting access to the means of persuasion on the one hand, let us subsidize it on the other. How much money do you suppose you would be willing to dole out to the Socialist Workers Party, so that they might enjoy unrestricted access to political speech? Your money, of course, as well as mine. And what to name this new Federal department?

I suspect, however, that’s not quite what you have in mind.

Ideally, this should be so. As a practical fact, it is not. Steve Forbes the millionaire has much more power than Steve Forbes the clueless doofus. That he manages to screw this up is a testament to his own chucklewittedness, it does not prove the fairness of the system.

But that’s never how its done, now is it? Senator Smith recieves campaign funding from the Committee to Protect Puppies, Babies, and the American Flag. Given your awareness as being roughly equal to mine own, I find it hard to imagine that you really believe that full disclosure, with the fullness of sunshine beaming down, could ever be realized. But that’s somewhat beside the point.

Strictly in the interests of bi-partisan comity, I think we might be able to find some ground for compromise here. By “gagging”, you don’t mean induced revulsion and nausea, right? Something more direct, yes?

No such thing. It is intended to expand the 1st Amendment’s protection of equal speech, and equal access thereto. (By the way, am I supposed to capitalize “amendment”?)

Honest? It may well be foolish to try to jam such, but I fail to see your analogy. At any rate, you are conflating process with principle: it will be, indeed, difficult and troublesome to actually legislate the principles I respect and advocate. And you are entirely correct that provisions of the current legislation are faulty.

But a flaw in the process is not the same thing as a flaw in the principle.

No, money is the means by which expression is enabled. If I have a million bucks to spread my views, and you have $5, we are equal in principle, according to your rather delicate and circumspect interpretation of the Big One. If in practical effect, the principle is rendered impotent, of what value is the principle? Our Constitution is not a tea-party manifesto, made up entirely of lofty and esoteric principles, but a living thing: powerful, significant, meaningful. Your approach exalts the wording, and enfeebles the intent. It is the right to be heard, as well as the right to speak.

To blandly accept the inequality inherent in unequal access while thrashing about in conniption fits over the “restriction” of campaign finance reform does no honor to the Constitution, unless you believe that it was constructed precisely to inhibit freedom. However free I may be to politely murmur my opinions, if my opponent is free to purchase a megaphone with which to drown me out, my freedom is a poor thing, indeed. Not worth the having, much less fighting for.

It can, however, like genetics be inherited. In my delusion, I thought we Americans had set ourselves against any such notion of inherited virtue and power. No doubt you can show me chapter and verse to prove otherwise.

But it is of no consequence to me how ancient an injustice may be, or how honored by tradition. It is the enemy of free people, mine and yours. That is all that is needful to know.

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. Given that I keep thinking arguing with elucidator might yield from him something more than empty posturing and mocking indignation, they must be preparing a room for me at Bellvue…

Yeah, whatever. Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. And BTW, I don’t believe I’ve given you any indication of how I go about my charitable giving.

Pointing out that you are relying on nonexistent, fanciful facts is a legitimate means to attack your argument. And I note you still haven’t said anything to indicate that such a characterization is inaccurate.

No, because I don’t have evidence for the oppposite proposition, either, although I do think the benefit of the doubt should be given. Perhaps the system is corrupt, perhaps it isn’t. I just think those asserting that as a positive fact ought to bear the burden of proving that assertion.

Yes, comrade, this is a doubleplusgood argument.

It is the same thing. CFR does seek to limit participation in the political process. “Unfair advantage” is just the justification for that limitation, and it is a justification bandied about whenever anyone finds themselves in a weaker position relative to someone else. Doubtlessly the Kansas City Royals feel the New York Yankees have an unfair advantage over them. That doesn’t mean we should hamstring the Yankees by, say, requiring them to bench Derek Jeter for the last 30 days of the season.

Coercing my support for speech I violently disagree with is no better than limiting my ability to speak freely.

By full disclosure, I mean full disclosure, meaning disclosing the ultimate source of donations. This is not a foriegn concept to the law. Tax, securities and antitrust laws all have aspects that require the disclosure of the ultimate parent entity or ultimate significant shareholders of a venture. To the extent that disclosure-based election laws can be toughened, I have no problem with them. And current disclosures aren’t so toothless as you imagine; opensecrets does a pretty good job of ferreting out who gave what based on public filings.

Please quote the portion of the first amendment that makes such guarantees. My copy only says that Congress can’t abridge free speech.

That’s what the authorities told Harrison Bergeron, I’m told.

Despite my best efforts, the scourge of Cognitive Dissonance has not been recognized for the grave peril that it is. I think you quite safe at this time. As well, I am pleased that you maintain your aversion to personal attack, or at least to the same degree. Shall we stipulate (I believe that is the word) that your humble servant is a blackguard, a scoundrel, and a despoiler of maidens, and then perhaps concentrate on the matter at hand?

Yes, yes, of course. Blackguard, scoundrel, etc. Duly noted. Now can we get on with it?

Such charming innocence! No such evidence has passed into your awareness? Never? Not once?

Comrade? Really. By these means, you maintain your dignified and scrupulous avoidance of * ad hominem* attacks?

That dogma won’t hunt. It is demonstrably true that some who find themselves in a weaker position oftimes will invoke “fairness” without due scruple. It is equally true that oftimes it is invoked with perfect accuracy. You make no such distinction.

Surely you don’t mean to suggest that on every occassion that “fairness” is questioned, it is invariably on the part of persons or causes that deserve to be weaker? Or do you mean to cast doubt upon the motives of my argument? Certainly seems that way, one might very well gather that impression, if one were not so emphaticly assured of your scrupulous avoidance of underhanded argumentation. As testifed by the one unimpeachable source, yourself.

No doubt. But until you can demonstrate that a proposal to ensure equal access does violence to your right to speak freely, your comment is as irrelevent as it is self-righteous. Apples and orangutans, as noted before.

Your humble servent thanks you for you educative efforts. I quite agree, a step in the right direction. Not sufficient, in and of itself. A crutch might be quite useful for one with a broken leg, but I’d prefer to mend the leg.

As you so often do, you seek shelter under the literal and, I daresay, fundamentalist interpretation of the Constitution. But just like Scripture, it is subject to interpretation by men of good faith, such as ourselves. Your testimony that you have so interpreted the Constitution in the only acceptable light is a “Just So” story. I am equally free to insist that the right to be fairly heard is clearly implied in the right to speech, with precisely as much justification.

I point again to facts in abundant evidence: our electorate is evenly divided, as amply demonstrated by the results of the previous Presidential election. And yet then, as now, one side of the argument enjoys an advantage in funding that is by no means reflected in their numbers. One group of citizens enjoys an advantage over another group. You have not even attempted to justify this disparity, and perhaps that is wise, since, of course, you cannot.

Injustice must be resolved, it is our duty as citizens to endeavor to make it so. The public discourse is as sacred as the voting booth, indeed, it is the foundation upon which public decisions are built. The notion that wealth justifies superior access to that discourse, whether that wealth be personal or corporate, is obnoxious and, I daresay, unAmerican. I will not have it so, you shrug in bland acceptance, and question my motives.

I echo your appreciation of Mr. Vonnegut, as I have read every published word, so far as I am aware. I think he might find himself uncomfortable to be enlisted in your cause, as his God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater is the most trenchant and incisive satire on inherited wealth as has ever been my pleasure to read. Several times.

I suppose it is possible that if he were aware of our argument, he might rush to your assistance. Frankly, I rather doubt it, but no matter.

I think the time has come for me to invoke what I think of as the Scylla Principle. You are immune to my argument, or at least to the extent that you have engaged it, repitition is pointless, and no one else seems interested.

You may, if you wish, have the last word, and if it be not too provocative, I will refrain from rebuttal. I would only that your mind were as open as it is sharp, but that is beyond my poor abilities, having only reason and rhetoric against adamant certainty. But we are read, we are pondered, the game was worth the candle.

A good example of how you’ve been handling arguments here: rather than address the point, you just ignore the argument and issue a hand-waving dismissal to a point I did not make. For example, here, I did not suggest any defect in your character; rather, I suggested a rather serious flaw in your argument (namely, the facts you claim are nonexistent).

Couldn’t help but notice this isn’t the same as providing evidence for your assertions.

But point of fact, I don’t think political corruption is terribly pervasive. It happens in individual cases from time to time, but by and large I think money follows the candidate, not the other way around. I think the fact that it’s hip to be cynical about politics makes everyone talk like it’s pervasive, but there’s very little actual evidence of that fact.

Again you dodge the argument, which is that what you were playing silly language games: claiming not to wish to hinder participation in the political process and in the very next sentence attempting to justify that very thing.

Neither do you. Why is this claim of “unfair advantage” and appeal to “fairness” any more legitimate than one made by the Kansas City Royals?

Every measure suggested does violence to the right to speak freely. CFR limits my ability to speak 30 days before a convention, it limits my ability to band together with like-minded citizens to jointly promulgate a political message, and so on and so forth. It is, quite literally, the Harrison Bergeron approach to political equality.

Then please set forth an argument for why the first amendment can be properly read to include a term that is nowhere near its text. And “because I really, really want it to” doesn’t count.

The Yankees enjoy an advantage over the Royals. This does not mean that their advantage is unjust or unfair.

’luc:

I’m still curious, per my question in the Pit thread, how you figure that a corporation is composed of its employees as opposed to its shareholders. Only in the “stakeholder” definition could your view be accurate, in which case pretty much everyone is part of the coporation.

Well, actually, I don’t figure any such thing, John. I do note that a corporation is considered a “person” in certain regards, but I don’t take that to mean much in terms of our discussion.

Shareholders are, of course, investors, persons expecting a return on their investment. Most are probably citizens, some are not, and what of it? Employees are, of course, just that, a situation that can be revoked on either part at their pleasure.

So, I guess, really, I’m not sure as to the thrust of your question. Might I trouble you for a rephrase, to make that thrust more clear?

Yes you did. From this thread (my bolding):

I don’t understand the distinction, for political purposes, between a union and a corporation. Both have the interests of their principles (members or shareholders) at heart. Employees may or may not figure into the equation.

Elucidator, what you ultimately fail to see here is that you never will be able to practically enforce campaign finance reform.

Get over it.

Get over it, adapt, and come up with a pragmatic solution. Frankly, the best one that we have is to allow every person/organization/labor union/corporation/neo-Nazi militia unrestricted speech and paying for that speech so long as it doesn’t violate the restrictions upon speech that have already been set out by hundreds of years of political theory, case law, and pragmitism, namely not posing an immediate danger to anyone else (yelling fire in a theatre) or damaging that person falsely (libel/slander), and then forcing disclosure of who payed who what.

If all you do is pass more restrictive CFR, then eventually people will be left to simply finance their own news media sources a la Air America, Foxnews, Rush Limbaugh, or any other politically motivated “news” source. Then the Dems can listen to Air America, the Pubs can listen to Rush, the Neo-Nazis can jack off to racist and conspiricy theory minded talk shows, and no one will hear what anyone else is saying, and the nation can become even more ideologicaly divided.

Good plan.

And for god sakes, could everybody stop coming up with stupid, akward word order shifts to try to make themselves sound intelligent?

You may not entirely appreciate the importance of starry-eyed optimism. Will perfection be reached? Almost certainly not. Can progress be made? Of course. Will clumsy and unworkable compromises be reached? Yep again. But even a raise in awareness is a step in the right direction.

Progress is a pragmatic solution. But, not to put too fine a point on it, what friend Dewey and I were wrangling over was mostly the principle of campaign finance reform. I freely admit that the practical application will be daunting and difficult, but I don’t accept that, by itself, negates the value of the effort. If I were to provide a smooth and practical method for campaign finance reform without loopholes or unfair advantages, he still wouldn’t go for it, because its a matter of principle, and not application. If I understand him right, which is open to question.

You lost me a little there. Forced disclosure, good or bad?

Yeah, hear that, Dewey? I’ll do what I can to keep him in line, 3, but you know how testy he can be, sometimes. Not enough brown rice and tofu, probably, chakras all knotted up.

Its a fairly fine point, but a corporation is one full step an abstraction, it is a purely artificial entity for the purpose of conducting business. When it bands together with the like minded, as in the example of defending thier interests from the depredations of such people as myself, who might limit their God-given right to pee in the pool, then they engage in politics. Unions, however, have political action (in the aspect of economic action) at their very core, it is their raisin deeter.

Disclaimers: my sentiments run generally towards unions, but there are exceptions. On a number of occassions, I have observed unions function as the direct oppressors of those they are designed to protect. As well, they sometimes actually restrict the teaching of skills and the assignment of professional credentials for strictly economic reasons. On such occassions, they are wrong, no ifs, ands, or buts.

As well, I think a restriction of union financing is a fair admission towards compromise. While I don’t agree, on principle, that a union operates on the same level as an industrial lobbying firm, still, it is a compromise that can be lived with. So long as it is met with an equal spirit of compromise.

I still have the nagging sense I haven’t quite got the gist of your question, advise if this is so. Ah! there’s the rub, no?

Chit. Ah, theres the rub refers to the last sentence of the previous paragraph. Regarding compromise.

Not necessarily. Unions can and do work entirely outside the political process to achieve the goals of their members.

But a corporation is no more an abstraction than a union is. A corporation IS the investors (not the employees, as you claimed). You invest in a corporation for the same reason you join a union-- to achieve certain economic/financial goals.

At any rate, my original question does remain unanswered, and I can’t think of any way of rephrasing it: Why do you claim that a corporation is composed of its employees? It’s not. It’s composed of its investors.

Wow, that’s a tough one, surely my entire case will collapse if I admit that…

But OK, if its means that much to you. Though I’m not entirely sure that your abstraction, that a corporation is composed of its stockholders, is that much an improvement. On the other hand, I can’t see wrangling over it.

Why do you see that issue as so significant?

Actually, the question is why YOU think it’s so significant. Again, from the Pit thread:

If it’s not significant, than why is it a “fundamental distiction” that affords unions a certain status not afforded to a corporation?

Earlier in that some post, you stated:

A corporation is also a conglomeration of actual people-- the investors.

You really have not demostrated any substantive difference between the two groups of people (unions vs corporations) other than one represents workers and one represents investors. But an investor is no less a person than worker is.

OK.

Not to be snide, John, but I feel a bit like the guy in the witness stand being badgered by Perry Mason, with the expectation that I’ll break down and blubber some kind of confession. Is it that you think you’ve got a 20-megaton gotcha?

Clearly, there are significant similarities between corporations and unions, as there are significant differences. Will the correct distinction somehow clarify the issue to the satisfaction of all? Or what, exactly?

You have an active imagination. My question is genuine.

You want to limit the ability of corporation to fund candidates but you don’t want to limit unions similarly. All I’m asking is that you clarify what fundamental difference informs that decison. You stated one “fundamental difference” earlier and then dismissed it as insignificant when I asked you about it.

So, what then IS the fundamental difference?

Excuse me?