If anyone hasn’t read the article, the regulations being talked about are things like requiring disclosure of who paid for political ads put on sites like YouTube.
On first blush, I think if someone raises more than some amount of money - maybe $10,000 or something - to produce political ads, it seems fairly reasonable that the maker of the ad has to identify themselves. I don’t think that’s particularly onerous or anti-freedom.
And then, if activists complain to your employers and you get fired, that’s just the cost of having opinions.
Uh, is that in response to my post?
On second thought, are you in the right thread?
Yes. I contend that
Oh, of course. I should have know EXACTLY that you were talking about anonymous works of art when you referenced someone being fired by their employer! How silly of me! Maybe in my next post I’ll talk about hamburgers and you can run it through your decoder ring that indexes it to the proper court case.
In any case, I have no problem with someone anonymously writing a pamphlet or making videos on their political philosophy in general. Anonymous videos produced through a PAC taking millions in donationa that specifically urge someone to vote for or against a candidate in an election is different. And I say this with an eye toward the current (and thankfully) outgoing mayor of DC, who is under Federal investigation for running a shadow campaign that illegally solicited donations.
Now, barfing up attack ads on YouTube isn’t the same as campaign finance violations, but I think there ought to be at least a minimal level of sunshine in political advertising.
Uh, not to burst your bubble or anything, but the government has been regulating speech for the last two thousand years. In the US in particular, anti-defamation laws actually predate the foundation of the USA by a few decades. We have always trusted the government, within a framework, to sort out these matters, because the alternative, completely unfettered free speech with no limitations, is more than a little bit awful. This is the second thread of yours in a row where you’ve throw up this horrifying spectre of the government regulating something that most people consider perfectly normal to regulate. This isn’t the spectre of fascism. It’s simple commonsense regulation.
Now, I personally disagree with these changes in regulation. I think the previous regulation (that applied solely to paid advertising on the web) is entirely adequate, at least for the moment, plus what Bricker said about anonymous pamphleteers has some real merit. But even then I still recognize that calling it “an attempt to shut down speech” is asinine. That anti-Obama ad that the Washington Examiner talks about? It could still run, unabridged. It would merely have to state where it got its funding. That can hardly be said to be an attempt to “shut down speech”.
That’s exactly the same twisted logic that prompted the incredibly biased thread title you created. It falsely tries to portray the issue as being about “freedom”. Who could possibly be against freedom? Are you against freedom? Case closed!
Regulation of political campaigning is about accountability and integrity, or to put it another way, about striving to limit the corrupting influence of money in politics. You don’t see how anyone gains from doing this? We all do. It serves the public interest. Ultimately, this is what preserves democracy and protects freedom. This particular case just updates the regulations to reflect the fact that the Internet is an important communications medium just like television and other traditional media, and should be treated the same way.
When the quote from your source starts with “Democratic FEC Vice Chair…” as opposed to “FEC Vice Chair…”, you’re going to hear about the possible bias of said source.
When you’re the guy posting it, you look as biased as the source does.
So yeah, it maybe is something that all people should be concerned about, but you’ve poisoned the well with the very first word you uttered.
Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there this is brilliant; I’m only sorry that tomndebb was able to compliment you on it first.
Your second paragraph is itself biased. Who could be against corruption or integrity? Are you against corruption? Cased closed.
Anti corruption measures are just as capable of being mis-used and exploited as free speech is. The closing down of free speech is almost always hidden behind the argument of common good. Whether that common good is to protect us against Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Communists or the KKK. It’s always the common freakin good. Are you against the common good? Case closed. Now, lets sort out those damn Muslim’s and their abuse of freedom of speech.
Sorry, when I hear of the Govt wanting tax details of political opponents I get nasty flashbacks of Lois Lerner. As if the US doesn’t have enough politically motivated interference from the IRS already. Let us invite some more opportunities for them to do so. Forget it’s Barack Obama in power for a moment. Let’s assume we have President X in power. Do you think online pieces supporting President X will get hauled over the IRS rack? No, me neither.
So what’s your solution? Stop the IRS from being able to do tax investigations? Disband the IRS? Disband government?
The solution to potential abuses of power isn’t to repeal all laws and regulations, it’s to have good laws, good governance, and a good system of checks and balances. To suggest that a regulation requiring political advocacy groups to provide financial disclosure is somehow equivalent to “shutting down free speech” is just right-wing nonsense. And this proposal isn’t even that – as I understand it it’s just a proposal to extend existing media laws to the Internet. Isn’t the Internet “media”?
Meanwhile, back in non-conspiracy land, I’ll note that the concept of not exempting campaign laws on the Internet is being discussed by the Federal Elections Commission, not the IRS, which by law is made up of three Republican and three Democratic commissioners.
I don’t have a solution. It’s not a problem I can pretend to have much expertise on. However, I do know that I don’t trust such info to be used impartially. We are talking of politicians here. The biggest bunch of self interested shysters going(on all sides). I assume you are quite a political beast. Think of your political opponents. Think how nasty and underhand you believe them to be. Well, the chances are your side are just as damn underhand and nasty, most people just don’t wish to see it. Giving all these vested interest politicians more power is about the last thing I wish to see.
The internet is not the same as “the media”. You do not need a license to post on the internet. Neither do you need to fill in a tax form. I hope to keep it that way.
Im not concerned which branch of government are discussing this. Branches of government legislate to give or take away powers from allorts of beauraucracies and organizations. Democratic politicians leak information; Republican politicians leak information. Do you think any tax details obtained about these financial backers will stay secretly hidden away in a locked box? My guess is that the financial contributors to such projects will recieve an IRS audit, or their names will happen to be leaked to newspapers at the most politically damning time.
Here’s a list of prior mis-uses of the IRS. You can add many, many more to the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_allegations_of_misuse_of_the_Internal_Revenue_Service
Any list of FEC abuses of power?
All I’m seeing there is distrust of government. It’s a common syndrome, especially in America and especially on the right. But that’s why we have opposing parties and politicians, a democratic process, and checks and balances within and between the branches of government. But in order for those systems to work, you need maximum transparency and accountability.
And yet giving those nasty underhanded politicians more power is exactly what you and the OP are advocating – more power to deceive and sway the voters and corrupt the democratic process while hiding behind a veil of secrecy, not being accountable for the political messages that they and their self-serving supporters may wish to anonymously peddle to a gullible public.
Again, all that this rule is about is honest disclosure. How this gets distorted among right-wing partisans into some kind of imagined attack on free speech is mind-boggling.
Can the Internet be used to reach millions of voters and sway their opinions? Then it’s media in the context of what the FEC should be concerned about.
Unless anyone here actually believes Lois Lerner’s emails were only stored on a physical hard drive, with no digital backup, and that those emails were accidentally erased, we should be mistrustful of government. When they lie to your face and insult your intelligence, it should breed mistrust. If it doesn’t, you are the one we should worry about.
Tell us how allowing politicians to anonymously make whatever lying claims they want all over the Internet for political gain, with no accountability whatsoever, solves that problem.
I’m not necessarily against the proposed changes from the FEC. I just feel compelled to make the point that America was founded in no small part to keep government out of the realm of political discourse. When we give the government the power to regulate the marketplace of ideas, especially with the democratic revolution that is the internet, we should always tread carefully.
Maybe this is a philosophical discussion for 100 years ago, but I think it’s still relevant in the digital age.
How so? I’m not the greatest American history buff.
If people are going to argue that the FEC should be able to regulate it “the way it regulates TV” does that mean that the FCC should also be able to regulate the internet the way the FCC “regulates TV” if not, please explain why the former would be constitutional but not the latter.