It wouldn’t just affect Moore’s film either.
I’m speechless. Every time I think the asshats can’t get any more unpatriotic, they go and surprise me again.
Weird, I cut and pasted that URL, but it didn’t work when I tried it just now. I clicked Submit before testing it, sorry. Let me try this again:
‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ ban?
I’m wondering if this is a parody site. This can’t be real.
It’s not that they would be banned from advertising - read carefully. It’s just that they wouldn’t be able to mention any candidates in their ads. The article is pretty ambiguous in some places, but note this part:
So, generally not good for anti-Bush documentaries, but not the kiss of death either. They’ll still be able to advertise even if this is the ruling, they’ll just have to be very careful about it.
That’s the danger of campaign finance reform. You say “No corporate campaign ads 60 days before an election.” and it sweeps in things like Moore’s movie if he uses Bush’s name/picture in his ad. If you want to open a loophole for his movie, what’s to stop a company creating a 5 minute videotape bashing Kerry and plastering ads all over TV for that?
There is a “media exemption” mentioned in that article, but I doubt Moore would qualify for it. Even he doesn’t consider himself a member of the press.
This is a consequence of the stupid campaign finance reform laws. Best case scenario this goes to the supreme court and the whole thing is thrown out.
But seriously, how can you aim to restrict political advertising, and expect political documentaries, magazines, and newspapers to be exempt? And if you make documentaries and “media” exempt, that just means interested parties will start making political documentaries, political newspapers, political magazines, etc. If the New York Times can print political news, why can’t the National Rifle Association Times?
Not mentioning any candidate’s names in ads for Fahrenheit 9/11?
Attention campaign finance reformers: welcome to the Law of Unintended Consequences. It’s a bitch, ain’t it?
I just read the AP Wire story on this petition.
I doubt it’ll stick. The story mentions exceptions for media in many situations, and this is probably one of them.
What tickles me is that the conservatives’ opposition includes arguments that Moore’s claims are “inaccurate.”
Oh. And BushCo’s claims about Saddam and Iraq aren’t.
GMAFB!
Oh… This is the Pit. Give Me A Fucking Break
Yep. Two wrongs always make a right. :rolleyes:
I think it’s called hypocrisy.
So :rolleyes: yourself.
I can’t believe the hypocrisy here.
It was conservatives who yelled the loudest when campaign finance reform was being debated, because we saw it as impinging on free speech. I saw many, many articles in the conservative press that envisioned scenarios just like this one.
Now you’re all getting bent out of shape, just because it’s Michael Moore’s ox getting gored.
All I can say is, now that you see the injustice of the law, you can help chuck it. Otherwise, Michael Moore will have to just suck it up, with a crazy straw.
I have no special sympathy for him. A lot of people are being hurt by the campaign finance “reform” and a lot of lawyers are getting rich by becoming experts on finding loopholes. It isn’t right. But you were warned. And you didn’t fucking listen.
Now I know you’re not talking about me, right? Just want to make sure you’re not waving that broad brush too widely there…
Noone in particular rjung. Don’t worry.
Just anybody that supported the campaign finance law, but sees fit to complain about it now.
Because, you know, we need to get the corrupting influence of money out of our politics, the First Amendment be damned. :rolleyes:
Moto, I read your post three times and I still can’t tell who you’re criticising.
But for the record, the only people getting “bent out of shape” appear to be the anti-Moore conservative media groups, who have been having paroxysms of sputtering indignation that anyone could level this much criticism in one dose as our president much less that fat, dirty, unshaven lying blowhard Moore.
And also, I don’t know anyone on the left or the right who ever thought it was a good idea to place limits on speech in order to reform financing, except for the politicians themselves, both on the left and the right, who need as much financing as possible to fuel the party machinery and keep themselves in free postage stamps and sexually submissive pages and interns.
You know the saddest thing about this whole situation is that I personally feel that there has to be campaign finance reform. This is because the wealthy get more attention from politicians (special interest) because they give more money, nuff said.
However, the worst part about all this is that even if reform happens, the very people making the laws are the very people who will snoop out the loopholes in those laws. As other posters pointed out, people will always find those various “loopholes” to get around the spirit of the law.
This, IMHO, is sad. The very people we elect to make, preserve and monitor the laws of the nation are the very people who do everything they can to find these loopholes and circumvent the spirit behind the law.
Sometimes I think there is no system that could ever work, especially while lawyers exist.
The best part is that all this fuss is better advertising for his film than he ever could have bought. What would it have cost him to get his name is so many headlines on so many front pages? (Or so many SDMB threads for that matter!)
Silly me, being against campaign finance reform on the grounds it violates first amendment rights.
Gosh it’s fun to watch the other guys squirm in their own noose.
Lissa wrote
You don’t actually mean that the “spirit of the law” is to allow your side to project their views, while suppressing the other side do you? I thought it was supposed to be about yanno fairness.
If the people lead, the leaders will follow.
Absent a distinctive shift in culture, you’re entirely right, no legislation will ever work. And there is usually a lag between cultural change and legal change.
We are accustomed to accept the influence of money, we’re used to it. The first thing that has to change is our acceptance of it. Large business conglomerates, like the pharmacuetical industry, pour money into the hands of candidates because it is their advantage to do so. And, of course, people who believe that wealth and power is in the hands of the wise and just see no reason to support change.
Now, in a way the second makes a degree of sense, democracy wise. A rich man has the same right to homelessness as a poor man, he has an equal right to expound his political position. One might well hope that his political position might encompass a larger set of concerns that just his own, but that is not required. He is a citizen, he has his rights.
We are committed to equality before the law, however ineptly and clumsily we embody those principles. We should be also committted to equality in making the law: equal representation, each citizen having precisely the political power our ideals promise him: one vote. One voice. If it is political blasphemy to permit any citizen to be denied that minimum, why is it more acceptable that another citizen has more than his fair share of political power?
If my fellow citizen choose to live his life in thrall to Mammon, so be it. I am entirely content that he can purchase vastly more loud, shiny crap than I can. But this is all I will cede to him. I reject the notion that I am obliged to permit him a louder voice simply because he can buy more air time, the public discourse ought not to be for sale, nor for rent.
Even more so for corporate interests. We may, for purposes of legal convenience, regard a corporation as an individual, but have we enfranchised General Dynamics and Pillsbury? Effectively, we have, and it is time we regarded that privilege with cool skepticism. Americans may love business, but that in no way implies that business loves America.
Even if we can find no practical way to legally forbid lobbying’s more pernicious influences, with all the loopholes tightly plugged, we can effect the same change by a change in attitude: if no Congresscritter would dare have it be known that he accepted campaign contributions from Archer Daniels Midland, and ADM would not dare be caught doing so, simply because of the general and emphatic disapproval of the public at large, much progress will have been made.
If we won’t let them have the power, they won’t. To paraphrase Franklin, its our Republic, as long as we keep it so.
You know, elucidator, somebody else could come in here, take your post, change “corporate” to “trade union” and repost it, and then end up with a screed that was equally valid?
I don’t much care, either way. I’m pretty much a centrist, which means I examine each issue, make my decision concerning same, determine where each candidate stands on said issues, and then just get disgusted with all of them.
But I absolutely hate the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act… er, I mean Campaign Finance Reform Act.
It makes a mockery of the First Ammendment.