Are you just saying that as a rhetorical device, or is it something you actually believe is true?
Because to me there is just no comparison between these two things:
(1) A country in which it is illegal to criticize the ruling party. Newspapers that publish critical editorials of the ruling party get shut down. People who are overheard making critical comments can be sent to jail
(2) A democratic country in which paid commercial advertisements for political parties and candidates are completely illegal. Elections are preceded by a government-funded series of debates and information-disbursement sessions, one overseen by a non-partisan organization
(Note by the way that there are already plenty of restrictions on free speech which are based on the the method of communication, as opposed to the context. For instance, you’re not free to walk down a residential street at 3 in the morning and yell your political beliefs through a megaphone. To the extent that campaign finance reform is even at all similar to a restriction on free speech, which I think is a stretch at best, I think it’s of that sort.)
Good question, beats me. But I have enough respect for the professionalism of my uncle and others in his field not to assume that it’s something like “well, a bunch of liberal academics started doing research, then saw that the results were not what they wanted, so abandoned the study” or anything of that sort, if that’s what you’re implying.
Before I do that, I have to ask for some clarification here… are you claiming that:
-For one or more states, you have both read the law AND done the necessary research to be able to meaningful analyze the likely consequences?
-For one or more states, you have read the law, think the law looks good, and you assume that the likely effects would be sufficiently minor, but have not actually done any in-depth research?
-For one or more states, you have read the law, and have read research by someone you trust who has done analysis leading you to believe that the likely effect is minor?
Because, as for me, I haven’t read any laws, and I in no way have the necessary knowledge base to analyze data about likely consequences. So, since I have so little actual knowledge of this issue, why am I up in arms about it? Because Occam’s razor tells me that if Democratic leaders are up in arms about it, they’re probably not just making shit up. Not because they’re noble and honest, or anything, but because, what would their incentive be? If Democratic leaders (who are professional politicians with staffs of people who really know this shit) saw a proposed voter ID law and analyzed it and didn’t see a likely disparate impact, what on earth would they have to gain by expending a lot of political capital on an irrelevance? (Worse than that, an irrelevance in which their position is one which on the surface appears to be the shady one… arguing AGAINST more honest elections?)
Very familiar with my own state, so I guess the third option fits best.
I think they thought there would be a disparate impact, but were wrong. In fact, I think what happened was by raising complaints about the issue, they raised turnout and more than offset whatever minor turnout negative effect existed.
Watch this space,** Bricker** is just about to credit the Republican Party for increasing minority participation. Clearly, this was the plan all along.
The question is non-gradable, since it calls for speculation. I don’t REALLY think you’re rooting for Republican electoral cheating, but you sure aren’t railing against it, despite the onionskin-thin layer of rationalization about it.
I find the idea that attempts to shrink the franchise, or make voting too much work for someone who doesn’t have hours and hours of leisure time to get to and wait in line at government offices, are justifiable to be horrific, anti-democratic, and really, just plain evil on the fucking FACE of it. I don’t really care if it’s communist hippies voting or fascist YAFers, everyone should be voting. Period. That’s the universal franchise.
How does summarizing an argument call for speculation, jayjay?
A common assignment in literature and writing and analysis is to summarize a piece of writing, or to accurately state the author’s thesis. These are not requests for speculation.
It is objectively true. a person wants to run an ad. The ad may not be run. That is censorship, just as if someone makes a movie or writes a book and the government forbids publication or distribution, that is censorship.
So, you have me on “Ignore”. Yet you were able to read my post without anyone else commenting on it and revealing it in a text box. So, you’re either a liar, and a dumb one at that, or you are simply unable to grasp the concept of “Ignore List”, which you claim you use.
Adaher: you are defending “outright censorship” as a literal truth?
There is, in your view, no difference in degree between forbidding the publication of a book, and limiting campaign contribution amounts? They are essentially identical?
A campaign contribution is not necessarily speech. However, calling the running of an ad a “campaign contribution” is an Orwellian way to justify censorship of that ad.
What if the government said, “we’re not banning movies, we’re just limiting how much can be spent on movies.”? That would not be censorship?
It’s pretty simple. I want to run an ad. I have the money to run the ad. The government says i can’t run it. That is censorship. Literally.