Some campaign finance laws are clearly constiutional. Some are debatable. And some, like this one (unless it has been misrepresented) are clearly unconstitutional. Do you know under what particular regulation this falls?
Yeah, let’s skip this whole “voting” charade and let rich guys buy public offices outright.:rolleyes:
Gotta love that logic. First the American public, rather than taking the right to vote seriously, votes for whoever spends the most money. Then rather than take responsibility for it, they complain about politicians “buying” elections and clamor for restrictions on the Constitution to fix the problem they caused. Politicians can’t buy anything the public isn’t willing to sell.
**Well, thanks, I guess.
I was hoping for something a little more specific.
I don’t live in California. [ul][li]Which specific radio show are you talking about, []which candidate has spent his limit and is not allowed to buy more spots, []what reason do you have to believe that they are doing it because they are friends of that candidate, could you provide a link to show that they are using “the foulest possible language”[/ul]And so forth. [/li]
I don’t think radio talk shows who criticize Gray Davis are necessarily part of what amounts to a conspiracy to circumvent campaign finance limits. Not without something more than this kind of offhand reference.
If you want to debate campaign finance limits because Gray Davis is unpopular in California, maybe you could say so up front.
Regards,
Shodan
Ahhhh, hate radio. Defined as: “Radio I hate”.
**
How would it be relevant?
**
We all have our cross to bear… (grin!)
**
I didn’t want to name any, as it might seem like an endorsement. Let’s start with “The John and Ken Show,” Los Angeles, and “The Roger Hedgecock Show,” San Diego.
**
I don’t know the candidate’s name; it was several years ago.
In the context of the radio shows, they aren’t taking money for it, but they are, in essence, giving free advertisements against Gray Davis.
[quote]
**
what reason do you have to believe that they are doing it because they are friends of that candidate?
[quote]
**
In the case of the newspaper editor, he told me himself: they gave him money to print news articles favorable to the candidate.
In the case of the radio shows, they may or may not be friends with any candidate. They are obviously bitter enemies of Gray Davis, and devote several hours every day to attacking him.
I repeat: this is not illegal. I just think it really stinks.
[quote]
**
could you provide a link to show that they are using “the foulest possible language?”**
You’d have to listen for yourself. I don’t have any way to “link” to a radio show.
**
I didn’t say that they were part of any “conspiracy.” I only note that they have the end result of undermining campaign finance results.
If I’m only allowed to spend, say, $10 million to promote myself, but assorted talk radio hosts are allowed unlimited air time to attack me, then wouldn’t you agree that the intent of campaign finance limits has been violated?
That’s rather rude, sir. Do you always attribute hidden motives to people with whom you are debating? We haven’t even yet determined that we disagree!
Trinopus
I sure as hell wouldn’t. How does the fact that the candidate of my choice has spent his money prevent me from exercising my freedom of speech?
Huh? How is this a rebuttal to what I said?
(btw, apologies for the ROTTEN coding!)
Trinopus
You said it stinks that people can go on the air and talk about their political views. Like, if they hate Gray Davis and think he should be recalled, that it stinks that they can just go on the radio and talk about that for three hours a day.
Does it stink if you, say, go on the internet and talk about how George Bush sucks? After all, you are essentially campaigning against Bush, right? And therefore, you are helping to circumvent campaign finance laws by giving the anti-Bush campaign free labor?
Of course not. Everyone in America is entitled–by the First Amendment–to express their political views in any fashion they see fit. And you think this stinks? Let me guess as to what your perfect society would be like…
I find it highly ironic that post that espouses a love of logic is one in which the poster takes comments and completely rephrases them to fit his own idea of what they mean and then derides them on the basis of that spurious meaning.
In short, don’t put words in my mouth, thanks very much, that’s my job. And be very glad we are in Great Debates and not the Pit.
First of all your line “vote for whoever spends the most money” implies that people vote for candidates BECAUSE they spend the most money. I’ve seen no evidence of that, but if you want to make that argument, go ahead, it would be interesting to read.
Second of all, the reason that candidates who spend more money tend to get elected is that they are generally able to get their message out to more media, and the message is often more skillfully presented because they’ve got top consultants helping them.
This does not mean that people in general are not taking their responsibilities as voters seriously, it means that experts are cynically manipulating the media to advance their political ends.
I also see a lot of irony in the notion that now that we are in an age of elections via mass media buys, the conservatives and Republicans who would generally agree that money is earned by successful, hard-working, capable entrepreneurs, and that its adroit use gives the user a well-earned advantage in business, are now denigrating the important of money in elections, saying that it isn’t all that important to politicians and politics.
Since this is Great Debates I will curb my language and merely observe that there appears to be a contradiction here.
Really? In my mind, a better example of irony would be someone first taking the statement “Unconstitutional? A lot of us feel that all campaign finance limits are unconstitutional…” and turning it into “Yeah, let’s skip this whole ‘voting’ charade and let rich guys buy public offices outright.” and then implying that another poster is rephrasing comments to suit his ideas and deriding them on the basis of that spurious meaning.
You must be quite busy, doing your job and Trinopus’ both. What words did I put in your mouth?
There’s certainly a large correlation between money spent and votes received. Do you dispute that? Or do you think the correlation can be explained another way? Perhaps candidates spend a lot of money because people vote for them?
Aren’t you now saying that people tend to vote for whoever spends the most money? Then why did you make a big deal of saying that they don’t? Perhaps you think that I meant that people look up the levels of spending of each candidate, and then vote according to that. That’s not what I meant; I meant that spending more money causes, directly or inditectly, more people to vote for them.
But if the majority of Americans were truly dedicated to choosing good representatives, manipulating the media would yield only mediocre benefits.
I don’t see the irony of that, nor do I see many conservatives claiming that money isn’t important.
To expand on Trinopus’ point, the issue of whether you’re exercising your freedom of speech is irrelevant to whether you are violating the spirit of the law. Of course, if doing the first results in the second, that suggests that there’s something wrong with the law.
Not sure the thread title’s right–“hate radio” brings to mind the KKK, Aryan Nations or Khalid Muhammed.
**
Specifically, I think it stinks that broadcast radio has been transformed into a consequence-free political forum.
**
The internet (so far) is a bit more level (small-d democratic) than radio. Anyone (everyone here!) is able to host a web site. How many of us can afford a radio station?
Please do. I’d love to know, as a matter of calibration, what sort of “perfect society” is implied by what I’ve written here. If your guess is wildly at variance from the truth, then either I’m not writing clearly enough, or, just possibly, the fault could be yours.
The Ryan Thank you for the defense; for some reason, this thread seems to have become more personal than is necessary, and I don’t quite see why.
You note that there is a correlation between money spent and votes received. This, too, is something that, in my mind, “stinks.” Why are “We the Sheeple” so plastic, so malleable, so weak-minded as to be susceptible to advertising? Why do marketing techniques that persuade us to drink Coke and not Pepsi work at all? Why do they work so terribly well? And why in the name of Thomas Paine do they work when persuading us to vote for one candidate over another?
And yet, all this being true, I still oppose campaign finance limits. It seems to me that we’re saying, “Mankind has an innate trait of walking face first into lamp-posts. So let’s ban street-lamps.” Um… No… Not the solution I favor…
Anyway, thank you for being a source of light. (And forgive me if I walk face first into you!)
Trinopus
So I take it you believe a person (or perhaps the forum the person used) should suffer consequences as a result of the person’s political views?
[ul]
[li]What sort of consequences?[/li][li]Who determines when the person (or forum) should suffer the consequences?[/li][/ul]
What exactly is hate radio?
The only talk radio I’ve ever heard is a year’s worth of Rush Limburg. And his show was followed by Dr. Laura.
Is this the sort of radio that the OP is referring to? I’m not trying to bait anyone here, but I just don’t have a feel for what people might be doing or saying on the air…
Well, at least when it comes to political discourse, I kind of wish that there was a means to punish broadcast radio hosts for lying…
(And, no, I don’t want to have laws that punish ordinary yokels like us, here, from lying. I just think that the broadcast medium, being – in theory – a public asset, should be held to a higher standard.)
Who decides? Judges and juries, I suppose…
Look, right now, if I buy an ad for my line of baked goods, and I say, “My cookies and cakes are safe and free from contamination by lead and mercury…not like cakes from Sara Lee or bread from Pillsbury!” then those worthies would sue my butt from here to Ulan Bator and back, and rightfully so.
But Rush Limbaugh can say things every bit as untrue, and get away with it, day in and day out. He faces nary a consequence for his actions.
Again and again, I don’t want a “ministry of truth” to vet all broadcast scripts before they’re read. I would kind of like to see a return to mandated time for rebuttal, a law that should never have been repealed…
The only thing I’m saying is: I think it stinks that campaign finance laws can limit how much one guy can say on the radio…but don’t put any limits at all on how much his enemies can say on the radio.
Trinopus
Your statement implied that people voted for candidates BECAUSE they raised money, i.e., “Candidate X has raised 2 million whereas candidate Y has raised 3 million, so I’ll vote for candidate Y.” No, the reason people vote for a candidate is that there is something in their message or the persona they project in their ads that makes them voteworthy in voters’ eyes. It has nothing to do woth the money in and of itself – but the money has EVERYTHING to do with how capable they are of getting their message across and making their image appealing to voters.
Then why did you make a big deal of saying that they don’t? Perhaps you think that I meant that people look up the levels of spending of each candidate, and then vote according to that. That’s not what I meant; I meant that spending more money causes, directly or inditectly, more people to vote for them.
We’re in agreement on this point at least.
But if the majority of Americans were truly dedicated to choosing good representatives, manipulating the media would yield only mediocre benefits.
Those bad, bad Americans who aren’t smart like us.
**I don’t see the irony of that, nor do I see many conservatives claiming that money isn’t important. **
I have. The line goes, “It’s not the money that’s important, it’s the message and the candidate’s character, so campaign spending limits are meaningless and a needless inhibition on free speech.”
This is complete bullshit of course. If candidate Y has 2 million to buy ads and bribe editors with, while candidate X has 4 million, guess who’s going to have a better chance of getting his message across?" Because of course, candidate X generally gets more money because his message is more appealing to the wealthy. Thus, freeing campaign finance spending limits would only tend to make the already wealthy and powerful even more wealthy and powerful.
Of course, the ending of fairness in media restrictions have allowed conservatives to buy up media and skew the playing field even further in favor of their “favored” as it were, candidates.
I would like to know what magic wand the conservatives and libertarians on this board are planning to wave to correct this imbalance. It would help if it has a real chance of keeping the playing field at least close to level, as fairness in media and campaign finance spending limits once did.
There’s that damned ‘free-speech’ at work again!
We accept limitations on advertising because advertisments can be demonstrated to be true or false (sometimes), and the consequences are tangible. (Dr.Brutus’ Mystical Snake Oil can be shown to not cure anything, etc)
Political speech is not ‘verifiable’. Certain factual claims can be proven or disproven, but as a whole, political speech is not something that can stand up to scrutiny, sort of like religion. If I claim that Clinton was a lecherous ass, who brought more harm to America than any President since Carter, just how can I prove, or can you disprove, that statement? I can point out the weak responses to terrorism that led to Al Queda getting the notion to strike at us, you can point out that Reagan and Bush Sr. also had weak responses to terrorism. Which is right? Which is wrong?
Since it can’t be ‘proven’, we have freedom of speech, especially in matters political. I can say that Clinton was The.Worst.President.Ever., and you can agree with me. That is the beauty of our system.
Granted, if I say something like, “In the year of our Lord 2003, on the night of August 10, Al Gore kicked my puppy. Twice”, that can be proven or disproven. I may get slapped with a libel suit (or whatever).
There are limits on our speech; For now, those limits seems fairly reasonable, but we need to be on guard against Europeanesque ‘hate speech’ laws. Nothing to put the kibosh on a free discourse of ideas like the threat of jail time.
I think Brutus defined it nicely. That was the best explanation of free speech vs lible I’ve seen. Proving an opinion is like trying to herd cats.