Haven’t seen any thread about this (to my surprise) so I thought I’d start one. If there is an active one already, I apologise, and hopefully a moderator can close this.
An organisation called “Democracy Now” has taken it upon themself to try and raise money for the next presidental election in USA. Specifically, money from European private citizens. The money will be transferred on to “Move On” who will use it to fund TV campaigns critisising the current President. So…
Is it “ok” that foreign citizen take an active part in domestic policy of another country? DN argues that since pretty much everyone is affected by the choices made by the US it is. I tend to agree, this seems a reasonable step in response to globalisation.
Will it have any effect? Err… maybe. Not neccesarily the way they intended though, I think. I doubt they will be able to raise a substantial amount of money. Sure, Europeans in general are pretty anti-Bush, at least those who are interested in foreign policy. Still, I doubt many of them will see, or if they do, sign up for this. Also, the donations are limited to 1 dollar, so even if a million people signed up it wouldn’t be that much in real money, compared to however much Bush has in his war chest at the moment.
I’m also of the perception that something like this could backfire. My impressions of the US leads me to believe that some groups will be strengthened in their support of Bush by this (“Damn foreigners! He’s OUR president!”), might even swing some neutrals that way.
On a side note I made some basic math. 17% of the population in the US voted for Bush, the US population makes up about 5% of the World population. That means that less then 1% of the worlds inhabitants voted for him. Not a very strong democratic mandate to change the world on. Maybe this is the start of something.
This is a really bad idea, for at least three reasons:
It’s illegal. American campaign finance law prohibits contributions from foreign nationals for any electioneering purpose.
It would be ineffective. The United Nations is dominated by countries which are opposed to the United States. No matter how eloquent your commercials may be, you will never persuade a majority of Americans that their security will be enhanced by acting only in concert with such an organization.
It would backfire, as such a campaign would probably backfire in most countries. Would Swedes respond positively to an American-financed campaign attempting to tell them how to vote?
As I understand it is illegal for candidates to accept money from foreign organisations, I doubt it illegal for TV networks. So I think it is perfectly legal for them to buy anti-Bush ads, just not give money to candidates or political groups around the election.
I think it would be rather ineffective to. I don’t agree that the UN is “dominated by countries which are opposed to the United States”. There’s probably a lot more countries that are negative towards US policy at the moment now then before Bush, but your claim, I feel, is wildly inaccurate. Bush isn’t the US, the war in Iraq isn’t US. I think you are an example of what I was hinting at, lots of Americans seem to think that UN and Europe is “against USA”. Because of that, anything the UN or Europe does will (by some) automatically be viewed in a certain manner. Ie: “If France doesn’t want me to vote for Bush, I damn well will vote for Bush!”
I think there’s a decent chance of it backfiring, sure. An American campaign in Sweden? Our campaigns are pretty far from what you have in the US so I don’t know what it would look like. If it was introduced in US fashion it would probably just be ridiculed (we don’t have political ‘commercials’ the same way, it’s mainly debates and posters). If you can give a reasonable scenario of how the election would be influenced I could guess at a response.
Eh, my link didn’t work. Here is the relevant section of the Federal Election Campaign Act I was trying to cite:
My emphasis added. Aren’t American campaign laws fun?
I haven’t looked up Section 304 (f) (3), but I’m pretty sure that an anti-Bush TV ad in an election year would be an “electioneering commuication” within its meaning.
Your campaigns don’t feature TV commercials? My first reaction is, I’m jealous.
If your politicians don’t raise and spend much money, then I can’t really give a comparable example. But our politicians do, as indeed they must to spread their message to a country of 300 million people. Candidates are often challenged as to how they raise money within this country (“He’s financed by evil special interests!”), and the reaction to a foreign-sponsored televsion campaign, even if it were legal, would not be positive.
Well the campaigning, as far as I can understand, wouldn’t be for any candidate, only against a particular one. I don’t know if that circumvents the “electioneering communication” clause or not but I am sure there are ways to get around it.
No, our campaigns don’t have TV commercials. And politicians don’t raise any money at all, mainly because we don’t vote for politicians, we vote for parties. The parties have a pre-set list of their candidates, ranked. You can select specific candidates on the list in order to advance them but that’s not used terribly often.
The main campaigning is debates, which is why there isn’t a very big need for money. Of course there are posters and flyers too (all parties that are big enough gets grants from the Gvt to spend on promotion), but they don’t really make a huge difference (everybody knows which parties there are… seven, by the way). The elections are mainly decided in the debates, which is why I have a hard time imagining how a foreign organisation would try to influence it… pay for the candidates to go to charm school?
Ok… back on topic. As I said, the intent of the organisation isn’t to put forward a specific candidate but to create opinion against one, so the “He’s sponsored by evil foreign interests!” thing isn’t relevant.
Frankly, this just goes to show how much the Europeans really want the US to become like them. I bet it really irks the Euro-left that we still value stuff like private property and individualism. And I’d respect their opposition to the war alot more if they had been principled and opposed all of Clinton’s wars too. Rather, I think they want us to make war, just where they point and say “go” rather than on our own behest.
I think alot of people share this sentiment about Europe, and as Stoneburg points out:
I’m not voting for Bush again, I’ve resigned myself to voting my ideology even if it means “throwing my vote away”. Still, when the Europeans get into an exaggerated, irrational, rabid frenzy over Bush, I can’t help but start thinking a little more favorably about him.
Well, I suppose it might not be ILLEGAL, per se, but I doubt that the Democrats (I assume this is yet another Bush bash) would appreciate outside agencies ‘helping’ them. Unless these folks plan to really disguise the fact that its foriegners attempting to subvert our internal politics, I’d think that it would be a serious blow to the Democrats when/if it comes out.
Unless these folks are actually playing the reverse psychology game and actually WANT Bush to be re-elected, they would be wise to stay out of it.
I’d say that this would be very unpopular with any major nation out there. No one would like to think that some outside nation is monkeying with their internal politics, and I would think there would be a heavy backlash if someone tried. Maybe in Sweden they don’t have campaign funds like we do here, but you say you have 7 major parties. Tell me something…how would you feel if you discover that secretely some other country was funneling money and influencing one of the major parties.
I don’t care if they don’t campaign the same, ALL political parties need money to opperate. Maybe they use the money to be stronger in the debates you mentioned, who knows. But just hypothetically, how would you feel about it if one of the main parties in your country was being influenced, say, by the US, in a bid to change your politics to be more in line with what WE want YOU to be?? Now, think about it if it were France or Germany, and the US was attempting to influence THEIR politics, cause we are pissed at them for not supporting us during GWII. How do you suppose THAT would go over? You starting to get the picture?
Yes indeed. If by “like them” you mean “favour multilateral solutions, and actively support the UN’s Millennium goals”.
I hadn’t thought of that. Now that you mention it, the Europe being in reality a totalitarian state, it makes sense. Come to think of it, why ARE you allowed to have private property? I mean everything here is owned by the government. Except my computer. Oh, and apartment. And things like cars… and businesses… and well, pretty much everything that isn’t infrastructure… and some of that too. But STILL, it pisses me off. And that individualism part is true too! I mean those french people are all the same! As are the germans, the greeks and turks and lithuanians! Hell, I can’t tell them apart. I can’t even tell myself apart from my conservative friends, liberal buddies and socialist co-conspirers!
Sorry but… what? Could you please explain how Europe (being a homogenous culture… no, really) doesn’t value “private property” and ‘individualism’? Please explain, because right now your post looks pretty ignorant… and I thought this board was made up of not-so-ignorant people… that’s why I came here. Please don’t disappoint me, I am sensitive.
Are you saying you can’t be agains ONE war unless you are against ALL wars? Actually, I don’t know why I am phrasing that as a question because that is obviously what you’re saying, and, that’s just stupid.
Yes. The UN is rather picky about the “go” part. It’s called a “mandate”. They didn’t like it when Saddam went to war by himself, and weren’t to fond of GWB doing it either. It’s the difference between unilateral and multilateral. UN being a multinational organisation tends to favor multilateral solutions… a lot. As far as I know the UN is against any country waging war on its own, not just the US.
Just give me a second to wipe the foam from my mouth… there.
**What the world needs is an American President who favours multilateral solutions, and who actively supports the UN’s Millennium goals. George W. Bush is not that man. This has become very clear during the last three years.
**
^^^^^ That doesn’t strike me as irrational rabid frenzy. Some parts of your post comes close though
Doesn’t mention ‘subverting’ anywhere. That means ‘sabotage’, doesn’t it? So let’s use correct nomenclature here. If they’re planning to disguise it it seems a bit daft to post on a public website about it and encourage people to spread the word, so that’s not likely either. They are trying to ‘influence’ your internal politics, not ‘subvert’ them. That may be wrong, it might even be illegal. That’s part of teh discussion. I say that they have a case, seeing how US foreign policy affects them, and I think i´t’s a pretty cool and democratic concept. I’m willing to discuss that though and I have far from made up my mind. Can ANY organisation be allowed to (within legal bound) influence ANY election ANYWHERE? That would be some kind of global democracy… don’t know if it would be good. You could also bring up the history of “nation building” which has been done with varying success by many nations, including the US. The US has admittedly interfered in a LOT of countries internal olitics… why can’t others interfere (legally) in its?
Yeah… that’s what I am worried about too. I don’t think that’s the motive, but it might be the result. Then again, for all I know, Karl Rove might be behind this.
Well that used to be the case in many European countries when the Soviet Union was still around, influencing various communist parties. I don’t know… I don’t think I would care. The way the system works here money wouldn’t make much of a difference for the party’s success, and I don’t care who they’re getting influenced by. If they get influenced into things that I like, good, if they get influenced into things I don’t like, I won’t vote for them.
As I explained earlier, the seven big parties all get money from the government to operate. The only parties that ‘need’ money are the ones that haven’t made the 4% cut lately. If the US, or anyone, wants to dosh out the cash to keep them in the race, great, more debate, more democracy… and we don’t even have to pay for it ourself!
Errr… like how? Debates are on state funded TV with unbiased moderators… I don’t think one politician showing up in a 100 million dollar suit would make him win the debate.
Hehe, I am realistic. Sweden is a small country, we’re constantly being influenced. Right now mainly by EU, but by US and every other coutnry we have relations with as well. I expect other nations to try and change our policy in line with what they want. That’s normal. We’re talking about influuencing domestic elections, there’s a difference… I think.
Wasn’t Germany and France quite heavily ‘influenced’ by the US after WWII? Especially Germany?
Anyway, that’s not the point, and it has no relevance to the subject. Whether this is ‘wrong’ or not can’t be answered by saying “Well THEY would be upset if it happened to THEM!”.
Just a quick nitpick Stoneburg…in future, could you try and attribute the quotes you pick up to the people that posted them?? You basically moiled my quotes with RexDart’s quotes. Now, ole RexDart may not like having his quotes associated with mine, no?
From Stoneburg
From your own earlier post, you said:
From Stoneburg
Hate to break it to you, old boy, but thats pretty much the definition of ‘subvert’ in my book. If they were doing it the other way, i.e. they were campaigning FOR a candidate, then it would be a quibble on my part using ‘subvert’. However, as they are tring to AGAINST a candidate (read Bush), I’m fairly sure HE would consider it subversion. And I’m fairly sure a large block of the American people would see it as such too…as interference of our politics by an outside source with a desire to make us conform to what THEY want. Americans are funny animals where that is concerned…I’m not sure WHAT they would do to be perfectly honest, but it probably wouldn’t be good. They might just re-elect Bush, and we can’t have that.
I was being ironic with the ‘hiding it’ part btw.
I don’t know the legal aspects…if any of our legal beagles wander into this thread, maybe they can shed some light. My guess is it would probably not be illegal, depending on how they go about it…and unless they are VERY stupid, they will check that out before hand.
As to the rest of your post, well, if it wouldn’t bother you to have the US or the old Soviet Union influence your elections, I suppose thats your affair. However, I’m sure you realize that there are some small differences between Sweden and the US as far as politics go. However:
From Stoneburg
The last part of this statement means things in your mind AREN’T so different after all. I’d say that, if individual Americans think that Bush sucks, and don’t mind that Europe is trying to influence their vote, then they will vote the way these guys want them too. If not…well, then not.
You also have to admit, having blasted RexDart, that Sweden is NOT Europe…nor is Europe Sweden. Maybe the Swedish as a people are indifferent to outside governments trying to influence their elections, but I’m guessing your average Frenchman might take exception…as well as the average German, and most likely the average Englishman. I’d say that they would be fairly pissed off if, say, America tried to influence the French presidential elections to get rid of the C man, no? After all, a lot of Americans don’t really like him, or his policies. However, I can’t even imagine what would happen (the term shitstorm comes to mind) if we tried to do such a thing. Maybe I’m wrong about this though and, like their Swedish brothers and sisters, they would be indifferent…
From Stoneburg
Trying to influence you? I have no doubt, especially the EU. However, do you have anything to back up the assertion that the US (recently) has tried to subvert your political process by attacking one candidate in order to radically change your government and its stances? Or that the US has tried to do the same to any other European country (lately). Or that private US organizations have tried to do the same? To be honest, I have no idea, but I suspect the answer is, we haven’t. If I’m wrong, please list some examples so we can examine them and see if they are similar to whats being proposed.
From Stoneburg
Sure was. And when I see either Swedish/European tanks in the capital, or when Europe comes and bails US out of a major jam, and throws, say, the Chinese or the Canadains out of the country and liberates us, then I’ll consider that turnaround is fair play.
If you just wanted the legal aspects of this thing, you should have posted this in GQ. If not, than all aspects need to be examined. I was using Germany and France as examples I had hoped you would understand (though you are Swedish, you are ALSO European, and should have at least passing familiarity with both countries to see the comparision), to explain to you WHY the American people may not go for such a plan. As I said, I don’t know the legal aspects, and if thats all you are looking for I’ll drop from the thread as I have nothing to contribute on that subject unfortunately.
Just a quick nitpick Stoneburg…in future, could you try and attribute the quotes you pick up to the people that posted them?? You basically moiled my quotes with RexDart’s quotes. Now, ole RexDart may not like having his quotes associated with mine, no?
From Stoneburg
From your own earlier post, you said:
From Stoneburg
Hate to break it to you, old boy, but thats pretty much the definition of ‘subvert’ in my book. If they were doing it the other way, i.e. they were campaigning FOR a candidate, then it would be a quibble on my part using ‘subvert’. However, as they are tring to AGAINST a candidate (read Bush), I’m fairly sure HE would consider it subversion. And I’m fairly sure a large block of the American people would see it as such too…as interference of our politics by an outside source with a desire to make us conform to what THEY want. Americans are funny animals where that is concerned…I’m not sure WHAT they would do to be perfectly honest, but it probably wouldn’t be good. They might just re-elect Bush, and we can’t have that.
I was being ironic with the ‘hiding it’ part btw.
I don’t know the legal aspects…if any of our legal beagles wander into this thread, maybe they can shed some light. My guess is it would probably not be illegal, depending on how they go about it…and unless they are VERY stupid, they will check that out before hand.
As to the rest of your post, well, if it wouldn’t bother you to have the US or the old Soviet Union influence your elections, I suppose thats your affair. However, I’m sure you realize that there are some small differences between Sweden and the US as far as politics go. However:
From Stoneburg
The last part of this statement means things in your mind AREN’T so different after all. I’d say that, if individual Americans think that Bush sucks, and don’t mind that Europe is trying to influence their vote, then they will vote the way these guys want them too. If not…well, then not.
You also have to admit, having blasted RexDart, that Sweden is NOT Europe…nor is Europe Sweden. Maybe the Swedish as a people are indifferent to outside governments trying to influence their elections, but I’m guessing your average Frenchman might take exception…as well as the average German, and most likely the average Englishman. I’d say that they would be fairly pissed off if, say, America tried to influence the French presidential elections to get rid of the C man, no? After all, a lot of Americans don’t really like him, or his policies. However, I can’t even imagine what would happen (the term shitstorm comes to mind) if we tried to do such a thing. Maybe I’m wrong about this though and, like their Swedish brothers and sisters, they would be indifferent…
From Stoneburg
Trying to influence you? I have no doubt, especially the EU. However, do you have anything to back up the assertion that the US (recently) has tried to subvert your political process by attacking one candidate in order to radically change your government and its stances? Or that the US has tried to do the same to any other European country (lately). Or that private US organizations have tried to do the same? To be honest, I have no idea, but I suspect the answer is, we haven’t. If I’m wrong, please list some examples so we can examine them and see if they are similar to whats being proposed.
From Stoneburg
Sure was. And when I see either Swedish/European tanks in the capital, or when Europe comes and bails US out of a major jam, and throws, say, the Chinese or the Canadains out of the country and liberates us, then I’ll consider that turnaround is fair play.
If you just wanted the legal aspects of this thing, you should have posted this in GQ. If not, than all aspects need to be examined. I was using Germany and France as examples I had hoped you would understand (though you are Swedish, you are ALSO European, and should have at least passing familiarity with both countries to see the comparision), to explain to you WHY the American people may not go for such a plan. As I said, I don’t know the legal aspects, and if thats all you are looking for I’ll drop from the thread as I have nothing to contribute on that subject unfortunately.
Well folks, I don’t know what you think is currently informing the policies of both the UN and Europe towards Iraq (and will be for the next twelve months), but you can bet ya life it’s most certainly very heavily influenced by November next. See, that’s how the game works.
Europe and the UN want Bush gone. So, they do as little as possible to bail him out now: Juice, own, for the stewing of.
There are very many other considerations because this whole area is a many-layered onion, but that’s the headline. Nothing new or surprising in that, everyone does it to everyone whenever they can; the ‘promise’ of a new Japanese factory in a too-close-to-call voting area ? Certainly sir!
So to suggest folks in Europe* might* try to have some influence and the Americans might be shocked by the very idea is, I’m afraid, a little naive at the start of this glorious global village, one economy, new Millennium.
It’s hardball, people, not an afternoon tea dance.
THere is a vast difference between not bailing out Bush on Iraq and actively trying to subvert our political process. Not bailing out Bush=Ok to the American people. Actively fucking with our politics=Bad, especially with the Conservative types, and the moderate/independants probably won’t be too thrilled either.
Trust me, if you want Bush gone, this is NOT a good way to do it. Of course, looking at a link, its probably a moot point anyway…I seriously doubt this organization has even a chance to get on the US radar. But if they DO…man, even the Democrats aren’t going to like it, as the backlash will most likely be at THEM.
I know you just like to argue, London_Calling…its what I love about you. But let me ask you something in all seriousness…do you really think that, if the average joe US citizen PERCIEVES that Europe is trying to fuck with our internal political process they will be either pleased or indifferent? Do you think that this group actually understands American’s thought processes (such as they are) in reguards to this issue? I guess what I’m asking you is, do you think this is wise, do you think it will actually work? Or do you think that, if its actually noticed it will have a NEGATIVE effect on the campaign from the Democrats perspective?
Let’s not forget the stink that was raised about Clinton campaign contributions from China. (I just now realized how alliterative that is.) If this ill-concieved plan mentioned in the OP actually happens, the right-wing media (at the very least) is going to lock on and not let go, even if there was no support of an actual candidate.
Why on earth would the US public think that Europe and/or the UN might care to try to influence the mood in the country towards the president by not getting involved on the ground in Iraq ?
It’s a figment of my imagination. Europe and the UN has no interest in the demise of Bush. Instead, what the UN and Europe are doing is what they think is the correct approach to the unique difficulties that face the region. It’s not intended that policy decisions affect anywhere or anyone beyond the immediate intention. Certainly not.
So I don’t know what you’re talking about and, in any event, to think both Europe and the UN might be willing to use the Iraqi people as leverage against the Bush presidency is as callous as thinking Bush would oversee the deaths of countless thousands in the pursuit of oil.
Probably, but only after getting over being utterly mystified by the US supporting France’s Socialists.
I concur with the other posters on overt foreign attempts at influencing an election backfiring, probably in any country. When Richard Perle said in an interview, shortly after the September 2002 German federal elections, that the elections’ winner Gerhard Schröder ought to resign, this was regarded in Germany as a) obviously a statement on behalf of the Bush administration, in a deniable way because Perle was/is an influential Bushista but not a government official and b) bad manners (I also heard that from people who loathe Schröder). Perle was well advised not to sound off two weeks earlier, before the elections, as he might have netted Schröder an percent or two.
German political parties are also barred from accepting foreign donations, BTW.
We’re not talking about Iraq, we’re talking about a European organization collecting money from European citizens and using said funds to campaign against Bush in the upcoming US elections.
This has nothing to do with the OP.
Indeed it would. However, I think both are equally likely possibilities. And yet, still, this has nothing to do with the OP.
The fact that you apparently didn’t read the thread before posting? Agreed.
Anyway, back to the OP. Stoneburg:
Democracy Now would not be able to campaign specifically against Bush. But they could do “issue-awareness” campaigns, I believe. It’s a fine distinction and a difficult line to walk, but if they’re sufficiently vague enough and word it correctly with no mention of either candidate they should be able to post the ads. But it will be difficult.
And it could backfire. They won’t be able to hide the origin of the money and it could push swing voters over to Bush. Basically, it’s a bad idea even from a pragmatic point of view, and especially so when you have that line to walk.
For the record. Democracy Now is a news program airing on over 140 stations in North America.
It has nothing to do with the campaign discussed here, which is called Democracy Aid.
Could the moderator, if he wanders in, delete the dup post please? And feed the hamsters too while you are at it…