why not ban political commercial on TV

[pervert]

@Mr2001

I’m not worried about the content of the ads so much as the fact that it turns political campaigning into a money game. Ban all the ads, or require TV networks to give free equal time to all candidates, or whatever… just as long as candidates are able to spend their time formulating policies for everyone instead of sucking up to rich donors.

Be very careful what you ask for. If the major parties did not have to spend so much money on advertisement, do you really think they would simply shut down the money generating machines? Really? They’d just say, “Well, next election we only need $2,000,000. So you can have the other $100,000,000 back.” ? You don’t think they’d find some other way to spend that sort of contribution?

[BrainGlutton]

I have a GD thread going right now: "How well do campaign-financing systems work in non-U.S. countries? " – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275891. Anyone interested in this thread might want to look into that one.

From an article by Steven Hill, 1995 ():

Public debate about campaign finance reform has proceeded in deep ignorance of how other democracies confront the issue. Yet a comparative approach sheds new light on potential solutions. A survey of rules and practices of the 20 democracies of Western Europe, Canada, Japan, Israel, Australia and New Zealand reveals the following approaches: 1) outright restrictions on the amount of campaign spending for legislative races; 2) restrictions on the amount of donations; 3) public financing of elections; an d 4) free media access to candidates and parties, coupled with a prohibition on paid political advertisements. Some countries combine several of these, a few use all four. The United States stands alone in being the only country to utilize only one of t hese practices for legislative elections, namely restrictions on the amount of donations.

For instance, Canada, France, New Zealand, and Great Britain place firm limits on candidates’ campaign spending. The ceiling for legislative candidates ranges from $6200 in New Zealand, $15,000 in Great Britain, $22,000 in Canada, to $75,000 in France. Belgium, Spain and Israel restrict the amount of “soft money” campaign spending by parties. In the U.S. there are no such limits, and costs for legislative races often exceed a half a million dollars.

From The Next American Nation, by Michael Lind (The Free Press, 1995), pp. 256-259:

Campaign financing is by far the most important mechanism for overclass influence in government. The real two-party system in the United States consists of the party of voters and the tiny but influential party of donors. The donor party in the United States is made up of an extraordinarily small number of citizens. In 1988, according to one study, only 10.2 percent of the American public made a contribution to a candidate, party, or partisan group. . . . The group of large political donors is a still more exclusive club. According to a study by Citizen Action, in the 1989-90 election cycle only 179,677 individual donors gave contributions greater than $200 to a federal candidate, political action committee (PAC), or party: “Thirty-four percent of the money spent by federal candidates was directly contributed by no more than one-tenth of one percent of the voting age population.” One may reasonably doubt that this one tenth of one percent is representative of the electorate or the population at large.

<snip>

Special interests buy favors from congressmen and presidents through political action committees (PACs), devices by which groups like corporation, professional associations, trade unions, investment banking groups – can pool their money and give $10,000 per election to each House and Senate candidate. Today there are more than 4,000 Political Action Committees (PACs) of various kinds registered with the Federal Election Commission; in 1974, when they were sanctioned by law, there were only 500. PAC money is driving campaign costs to new heights. In 1992, the average Senate incumbent spent more than $3.6 million for re-election; that is the equivalent of raising $12,000 a week in a single six-year term. Members of Congress, by comparison, spend only an average of $557,403 to be re-elected – a “mere” $5,000 a week for a two-year term. The average cost of a House campaign has risen to this level from $140,000 in 1980 – and $52,000 in 1974.

The chief beneficiaries of rising campaign costs and PAC contributions have been incumbents. In 1972, 52 cents of the average PAC dollar went to incumbents, compared to 25 cents to challengers (the rest went to candidates for open seats); in the 1988 House elections, incumbents received 84.4 cents of each PAC dollar and challengers only 8.6 cents. It makes more sense for lobbies to buy access to established members of Congress and senators – particularly those with important leadership positions – than to fund challengers, who, if elected, would have no seniority and little influence. . . . Former Senator Barry Goldwater has lamented, "The Founding Fathers would frown in their graves if they saw us rationing candidacies sheerly on the basis of money: who has – or can raise – the millions necessary to run for office."

Democrats, when they were members of the majority party, received more PAC money than Republicans, though both parties are saturated with it. Contrary to conservative claims that liberal lobby groups dominate Congress, PAC funds come overwhelmingly from business: in 1990, 65 percent of PAC contributions came from business PACs, compared to 24 percent from labor and only 11 percent from ideological groups (including conservative as well as liberal pressure groups). “At one point,” John Judis has pointed out, “the American Petroleum Institute employed more lobbyists in Washington than the entire labor movement.”

One of the effects of the postpartisan PAC system is to weaken the link between members of Congress and senators and the districts and states they are supposed to represent. Out-of-state money from special interests often flowes into House and Senate elections. This means that many senators are, in effect, at-large representatives of free-spending national business constituencies.

Some argue that special-interest expenditures have no significiant influence on public policy. If all of this money is not buying special favors from congressmen and senators, a great many groups and individuals who are otherwise careful with their resources are acting in a highly irrational manner, year after year.

You can’t get much more libertarian than Barry Goldwater. And even he was horrified at what money has done to American politics!

From pp. 311-313:

Today’s U.S. government is democratic in form but plutocratic in substance. . . . In a misguided 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that Congress could not limit spending by rich Americans promoting their own candidacies. This decision was to the equalization of voting power what Dred Scott was to abolitionism. In The Yale Law Review, Jamin Raskin and John Boniface have argued that political candidates in the United States must win a “wealth primary.” Candidates without enormous amounts of money, either from their own fortunes or from rich individuals and special interest groups, cannot hope to win the party primaries – much less general elections. Indeed, the Buckley decision is one reason why more than half the members of the Senate today are millionaires. . . .

It is time to build a wall of separation between check and state. Curing the disease of plutocratic politics requires a correct diagnosis of its cause: the costs of political advertising. The basic problem is that special interests buy access and favors by donating the money needed for expensive political advertising in the media. Elaborate schemes governing the flow of money do nothing to address the central problem: paid political advertising. Instead of devising unworkable limits on campaign financing that leave the basic system intact, we should cut the Gordian knot of campaign corruption by simply outlawing paid political advertising on behalf of any candidate for public office. The replacement of political advertising by free informational public service notices in the electronic and print media would level the playing field of politics and kill off an entire parasitic industry of media consultants and spin doctors.

An outright ban on paid political advertising and the imposition of free time requirements on the media are radical measures, but nothing less is necessary if we are to prevent our government from continuing to be sold to the highest bidders. The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the content of speech – only its volume, as it were. It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well.*

*A much more compelling analogy would be between the electoral process and the judicial system, with the electorate playing the role of the jury. In our system of trial by jury, there are elaborate rules governing the presentation of evidence to the jury by plaintiff and defendant (the “candidates”). If our judicial system were organized the way our judicial system is, then rich candidates would be allowed to buy time before the jury. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, in one Senate election, outspent his opponent by 300 to 1; the equivalent, in the judicial system, would be allowing a rich plaintiff to buy, say, six months to present his side of the case, while the poor plaintiff might be able to purchase only twenty minutes for his side.

[Ms2001]

@pervert

Be very careful what you ask for. If the major parties did not have to spend so much money on advertisement, do you really think they would simply shut down the money generating machines? Really?

In the cases where those “money generating machines” involve either a lot of fundraising effort or sucking up to rich donors, yeah, I think they would. Sure, people might still donate money, but if the candidate knows he doesn’t need that money to get his message out, I don’t think he’ll feel that he owes as much to the donor.

They’d just say, “Well, next election we only need $2,000,000. So you can have the other $100,000,000 back.” ? You don’t think they’d find some other way to spend that sort of contribution?

Do people routinely write $102,000,000 checks to candidates when (1) the candidates haven’t solicited their donations and (2) the donors don’t expect to get anything in return?

[BrainGlutton]

Sorry, here’s the link to Steven Hill’s 1995 article:

[Ms2001]

@BrainGlutton

Sorry, here’s the link to Steven Hill’s 1995 article:

No it isn’t.

[BrainGlutton]

:smack:

One more time: http://www.giantleap.org/envision/campaign.htm

[SentientMeat]

Semantics. You could use the same silly word games to ban any other type of [speech].

This is just irrelevant slippery slopery. Televisual advertisement is regulated in all kinds of ways, which is why we do not see the Hefner-Irvine-Pipebomb Party advertising their policy of pornographic holocaust denial using homemade explosives. The UK does not ban what is being spoken, merely how those speeches are funded and distributed - were these restrictions to be lifted the parties would likely simply repeat their exact same Party Political Broadcasts as often as their finances allowed.

Personally, I consider political commercial advertising to be such a bottomless financial pit that it undermines democracy. Restricting it abrogates free speech no more than restricting the shouting of “fire!” in a crowded theatre.

[Debaser]

@SentientMeat

This is just irrelevant slippery slopery.

No, it’s not.

I was pointing out that you stubbornly denying that political ads are speech does not make it so. Political ads are speech. Can anyone seriously deny this?

They are exactly the type of thing that the founders had in mind when they wrote the constitution, IMO. People are trying to get their political message out to others. Today’s political ad on TV is the 1700’s poster nailed to a tree.

[SentientMeat]

Political ads are speech.

As are the notional Hefner-Irvine-Pipebomb party’s broadcasts, or indeed shouting “bomb” on an aeroplane.

Today’s political ad on TV is the 1700’s poster nailed to a tree.

And yet the 1700 poster campaign did not cost the same as the entire GDP of many of the world’s countries. That political message gets out just as easily elsewhere without commerical ads. In fact, I am arguing that it gets out better.

[Debaser]

@SentientMeat

As are the notional Hefner-Irvine-Pipebomb party’s broadcasts, or indeed shouting “bomb” on an aeroplane.

I don’t know what you mean when you refer to the Hefner-Irvine-Pipebomb Party’s broadcasts. Can you clarify this?

Shouting bomb on a plane isn’t a free speech issue. It’s a public safety issue. The person is not being prohibited by the government of saying “bomb” because they want to block him from getting a political message out. They are simply protecting the public.

And yet the 1700 poster campaign did not cost the same as the entire GDP of many of the world’s countries.

So what? Speech is free under the first ammendment unless you have a lot of money? What’s your basis for this?

That political message gets out just as easily elsewhere without commerical ads. In fact, I am arguing that it gets out better.

[/quote]

OK. This makes sense. You have good intentions and see a way for the government can act that will improve things for all of us. How very liberal of you. However, what you are suggesting is outragous. Even if it would get political messages out better, which is certainly not true, it is still blatantly unconstitutional and wrong.

[Debaser]

It’s obvious that the government passing laws prohibiting (or even limiting) the amount of advertising that people can put out there in any medium is a violation of the letter and the spirit of the first ammendment protections of speech.

However, I’ll argue for a minute about why such laws won’t even work anyway, even if they were constitutional.

1. The government isn’t able to do it. Governments in general tend not to be efficient. Even if the intentions are pure and noble, the end result will be that those with money will always be able to get the message out there. Ban ads and they will spend the money on something else.

2. Unintended consequences. New laws in general tend to have all kinds of consequences that are impossible to forsee. Once the government bans some forms of speech, even if the intention is harmless there could be all kinds of negative fallout.

3. Slippery slope. This situation is the mother of all slippery slopes. Once you agree to ban speach a signifigant line has been crossed. It will be that much easier for others to start thinking of good reasons why other types of speech should be banned.

4. It just isn’t needed. At the time the country was founded, the press was way worse than what we have today. People blatantly lied all the time and the founders still wanted to protect all speech. If someone is lying in an advertisement then the media will pick up on it. People usually find out the truth. The best thing the government can do is just stay out of the way.

[SentientMeat]

I don’t know what you mean when you refer to the Hefner-Irvine-Pipebomb Party’s broadcasts. Can you clarify this?

An advertisement incorporating pornography, holocaust denial or tuition on making explosives. These are restricted even in the US.

They are simply protecting the public.

I argue that the UK’s restrictions protects us from plutocracy.

So what?

I argue that if the money-pit of political advertising is open, the slope towards outright plutocracy is every bit as slippery as that towards totalitarianism if it is sealed up.

How very liberal of you.

Actually, I’m only socially liberal. Economically, the word is used so counterintuitively in the US that it is worse than useless. But I digress.

what you are suggesting is outragous. Even if it would get political messages out better, which is certainly not true, it is still blatantly unconstitutional and wrong.

Outrageous? Let us not become hysterical. Restrictions on political advertising exist in many democracies, some of which have a written constitution similar to that of the US.

1. The government isn’t able to do it.

Other governments clearly are.

2. Unintended consequences.

Argument ad ignoratiam.

3. Slippery slope.

You realise that this is a fallacy?

4. It just isn’t needed.

I didn’ argue that it was necessary, just that it was better.

[BrainGlutton]

@Debaser

1. The government isn’t able to do it. Governments in general tend not to be efficient. Even if the intentions are pure and noble, the end result will be that those with money will always be able to get the message out there. Ban ads and they will spend the money on something else.

Debaser, I have another GD thread going right now: “How well do campaign-financing systems work in non-U.S. countries?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275891 The general consensus – so far – is that such systems work exactly as intended, they keep big money from exercising any influence on elections, and politically interested persons with money have not found ways to circumvent the laws.

@Debaser

2. Unintended consequences. New laws in general tend to have all kinds of consequences that are impossible to forsee. Once the government bans some forms of speech, even if the intention is harmless there could be all kinds of negative fallout.

Nothing like this has happened, or appears likely to happen, in those countries that already have public campaign-financing systems in place.

@Debaser

3. Slippery slope. This situation is the mother of all slippery slopes. Once you agree to ban speach a signifigant line has been crossed. It will be that much easier for others to start thinking of good reasons why other types of speech should be banned.

See my response to point 2.

@Debaser

4. It just isn’t needed. At the time the country was founded, the press was way worse than what we have today. People blatantly lied all the time and the founders still wanted to protect all speech. If someone is lying in an advertisement then the media will pick up on it. People usually find out the truth. The best thing the government can do is just stay out of the way.

The problem isn’t that campaign ads are full of lies, Debaser. The problem is that our current campaign-financing system (1) establishes a de facto “wealth primary” in which only rich and/or well-connected persons can hope to be taken seriously as candidates for high office, and (2) allows the rich and the corporations to pretty much call the shots over public policy – because those who make the decisions are beholden to them, and will be needing their support again for the next election if they want to keep their jobs. Reread my post above citing from Lind’s The Next American Nation, including figures on the costs of campaigns and the documented sources of most campaign funding. Pay special attention to Lind’s point: “The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the content of speech – only its volume, as it were. It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well.”

[Debaser]

@SentientMeat

An advertisement incorporating pornography, holocaust denial or tuition on making explosives. These are restricted even in the US.

Huh? There is no law prohibiting an advertisement denying the holocaust. No television station would air such an ad, but that is by thier choice. Unlike Germany, the US doesn’t have anti-Nazi laws.

Pornography does border on free speech violations, IMO, because what’s being banned is the “speech”. It’s not really demonstrably dangerous or anything and is banned because the majority of Americans don’t want it shown.

But, tuition on making explosives is way off base. This is the same as yelling “fire” in a theater, “bomb” on a plane, or the like. We’ve gone over this again and again. This is a public safety issue. It’s got nothing to do with speech. Creating a dangerous public safety situation isn’t speech anymore than a mafia don ordering a murder is.

I argue that the UK’s restrictions protects us from plutocracy.

I argue that if the money-pit of political advertising is open, the slope towards outright plutocracy is every bit as slippery as that towards totalitarianism if it is sealed up.

I disagree first of all that this is a problem. In a capitalist society those with money will always have more say than those without. There is no avoiding this. I also disagree that blocking political advertising will have any meaningful impact. The money will always find a way into the political process.

Outrageous? Let us not become hysterical. Restrictions on political advertising exist in many democracies, some of which have a written constitution similar to that of the US.

Yes, outrageous. It’s not hysterical at all to label it so.

Argument ad ignoratiam.

Huh? The concept that all laws tend to have unintended consequences is a cornerstone of conservative thought. It means that if you want to pass a new law it had better be well thought out and for damn good reason, because there is a very long track record of government programs and laws that have had unforseen negative consequences. How you twist this into a logical fallacy is completely unclear to me.

You realise that this is a fallacy?

[/quote]

Yes, there is a fallacy called “slippery slope”. This does not mean that every time someone points out that there is a slippery slope they are guilty of subscribing to said fallacy. In this case the slope does exist. If we start ignoring the first ammendment because we think we are doing more good than harm, then the protections against free speech are weakened. It’s only a logical fallacy if there is no basis for the claim.

I didn’ argue that it was necessary, just that it was better.

[/quote]

Again, how very liberal of you.

• I do not mean this as an insult. After participating in your political compass threads I have come to respect your opinion. However, you are so far to the left that it is difficult to remind myself where you are coming from.

You see, a liberal would think this way. You have an idea. Your idea seems to be better. Not necessary, just better. So, lets do it! Don’t let that pesky constitution stand in the way either.

As a conservative this attitude is frightening to me. If you want to give the government sweeping new powers that are in violation of the constitution you better have a damn good reason. It’s up to you to prove that there will be some positive result.

The fact that we just passed a campaign finance reform law which has been a total failure means we should be repealing such laws not contemplating new ones that are ten times worse.

[BrainGlutton]

@Debaser

In a capitalist society those with money will always have more say than those without. There is no avoiding this.

That is not true, Debaser. Rich people in Europe do not have “more say” – at least, not compared with rich people in America.

And if it were true, it would be a telling argument against capitalism.

@Debaser

I also disagree that blocking political advertising will have any meaningful impact. The money will always find a way into the political process.

That is not true either.

[Debaser]

@BrainGlutton

Debaser, I have another GD thread going right now: “How well do campaign-financing systems work in non-U.S. countries?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275891 The general consensus – so far – is that such systems work exactly as intended, they keep big money from exercising any influence on elections, and politically interested persons with money have not found ways to circumvent the laws.

I’ll read that thread. However, you must remember that just because a thread or even multiple threads seems to come to a conclusion on the SDMB that does not mean the issue is decided. This is a far left leaning message board, so such consensus building is particularly meaningless when the masses are agreeing an a leftist position. I haven’t read that thread, so I’m not judging it. However, often times there are so few conservatives to go around that threads are allowed to rage on without even being answered. This does not mean that the consensus is correct that the mob reaches.

Nothing like this has happened, or appears likely to happen, in those countries that already have public campaign-financing systems in place.

See my response to point 2.

Well, take a look at CFR. It just got passed and already the law has been completely circumvented by 527’s. This was not intended.

Look at this discussion. Limiting the speech with McCain Feingold was the first step and now people are openly advocating blocking all political speech from the airwaves.

The problem is that our current campaign-financing system (1) establishes a de facto “wealth primary” in which only rich and/or well-connected persons can hope to be taken seriously as candidates for high office

Do you seriously suggest that this will ever not be the case? Do you think it likely or even a good thing if poor and/or persons with no connections can hope to be taken seriously as candidates for high office?

Do we need to have Bob the plumber participating in the debates?

(2) allows the rich and the corporations to pretty much call the shots over public policy – because those who make the decisions are beholden to them, and will be needing their support again for the next election if they want to keep their jobs.

This is just not true. The elected officials in this country are beholden to the taxpayers first and foremost. To claim that rich people and corporations call the shots over policy is silly. If you are going to make a wild claim like this then you will need to have some serious cites and arguments to prove.

[SentientMeat]

We’ve gone over this again and again. This is a public safety issue.

Again, you are saying that the abrogation of some speech is justified in the public interest. You are skiing on your own slippery slope.

It’s up to you to prove that there will be some positive result.

Can anyone “prove” the future? I can only tell you that the reasonable restrictions on political advertising here in the UK definitely seem to “work”, and clearly don’t restrict what is said (“just its volume” - thanks to BG’s excellent article link) and thus abrogates free speech not at all, whether the UK’s constitution is written or not.

[BrainGlutton]

@Debaser

I’ll read that thread. However, you must remember that just because a thread or even multiple threads seems to come to a conclusion on the SDMB that does not mean the issue is decided. This is a far left leaning message board, so such consensus building is particularly meaningless when the masses are agreeing an a leftist position. I haven’t read that thread, so I’m not judging it. However, often times there are so few conservatives to go around that threads are allowed to rage on without even being answered. This does not mean that the consensus is correct that the mob reaches.

I posted that thread hoping to get some input, not from leftists, but from Europeans, who live in countries where public campaign financing is the norm, and therefore should have some insight into whether it works as intended. When we discuss this issue in the U.S., we usually discuss it as if it were a completely new idea that no other country had yet tried. That is a very regrettable blind spot.

Remember also that this is not the message board of the Socialist Party or anything like that. The Doper community is composed of people who (1) are aware of the SDMB’s existence, possibly through having read Cecil’s column at some time or other; (2) have regular access to Internet-linked computers; and (3) have a certain basic level of interest in intellectual matters. If it seems to turn out that more liberals than conservatives post here (a point on which I am not entirely convinced, and we have debated it here before) . . . maybe that should tell you something about the relative intellectual merits of liberalism and conservatism.

@Debaser

Limiting the speech with McCain Feingold was the first step and now people are openly advocating blocking all political speech from the airwaves.

No, Debaser, only blocking political campaigns and their supporters from buying airtime. Paid political advertising would be replaced by free air-time, equal for each candidate, which the stations would be required to provide as a public service as a condition of licensing. That’s how it works in Europe and it seems to be working just fine. No political camp there (except maybe the Nazis) can honestly claim it is somehow being hindered from getting its message out to the public.

@Debaser

Do you think it likely or even a good thing if poor and/or persons with no connections can hope to be taken seriously as candidates for high office?

I think it’s likely if we can get the money factor out of politics, as the Euros have done. And I am very, very disturbed you would even question whether it would be a good thing. :mad: Why don’t you think it would be a good thing? Are you an American or not?

@Debaser

The elected officials in this country are beholden to the taxpayers first and foremost. To claim that rich people and corporations call the shots over policy is silly. If you are going to make a wild claim like this then you will need to have some serious cites and arguments to prove.

I will repost a couple of relevant paragraphs from Lind’s book:

Campaign financing is by far the most important mechanism for overclass influence in government. The real two-party system in the United States consists of the party of voters and the tiny but influential party of donors. The donor party in the United States is made up of an extraordinarily small number of citizens. In 1988, according to one study, only 10.2 percent of the American public made a contribution to a candidate, party, or partisan group. . . . The group of large political donors is a still more exclusive club. According to a study by Citizen Action, in the 1989-90 election cycle only 179,677 individual donors gave contributions greater than $200 to a federal candidate, political action committee (PAC), or party: “Thirty-four percent of the money spent by federal candidates was directly contributed by no more than one-tenth of one percent of the voting age population.” One may reasonably doubt that this one tenth of one percent is representative of the electorate or the population at large.

<snip>

Some argue that special-interest expenditures have no significiant influence on public policy. If all of this money is not buying special favors from congressmen and senators, a great many groups and individuals who are otherwise careful with their resources are acting in a highly irrational manner, year after year.

[Debaser]

@SentientMeat

Again, you are saying that the abrogation of some speech is justified in the public interest. You are skiing on your own slippery slope.

It seems that you are being deliberately obtuse on this issue to prove some point. But what that is escapes me.

The government blocking somone from saying “fire” in a theater or other issues of criminality or public safety is not the same thing as the government blocking political speech because of some positive goal they have in mind for all of us.

It’s not even close to the same thing. No reasonable person would argue that they are the same thing. Do you seriously not get the difference or are you trying to prove some kind of point by continually probing on this?

[Debaser]

@BrainGlutton

Debaser, I have another GD thread going right now: “How well do campaign-financing systems work in non-U.S. countries?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275891 The general consensus – so far – is that such systems work exactly as intended, they keep big money from exercising any influence on elections, and politically interested persons with money have not found ways to circumvent the laws.

It turns out I do know that thread.

That thread only has 14 posts in it. Of which ten are the two of us posting! For you to imply that the other four posts have any “consensus” is quite meaningless. The way you folks were carrying on as if it were a proven issue had me thinking that there were some well documented and undisputed five page long thread laying out how great the finance laws in Europe work. You need to make much more of a case in order to win me over than four posts in a GD thread with no cites.