Today the Supreme court decided that the first amendment right of free
speech only applies to pornography but not to political speech. From
their decision: "Thus, the Court examines the degree to which BCRA
burdens First Amendment expression and evaluates whether a com-
pelling governmental interest justifies that burden. " So now the
government can determine whether a compelling government interest exists
to limit freedom of speech. And that compelling interest can either be
to "prevent corruption or even the appearance of corruption" The foot
is in the door, a sad day indeed.
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:58:03 GMT, Charles <[email protected]>
brought forth from the murky depths:
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54524-2003Dec10.html
Way to go Sandy. You go, girl!
Dittoes to McCain and Feingold. Even if their concepts are too
narrow, it's a start; a step in the right direction.
Another way to slow corruption is to communalize troughs, banning
individual contributions to a given candidate. All campaign money
for an office would go into a single till and would be divvied up
equally between valid office seekers 3 weeks before the vote. This
would equalize their odds and help rule out curried favors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I sent in my $5, so * http://www.diversify.com/stees.html
why haven't I been 'saved'? * Graphic Design - Humorous T-shirts
Larry Jaques writes:
>
>Another way to slow corruption is to communalize troughs, banning
>individual contributions to a given candidate. All campaign money
>for an office would go into a single till and would be divvied up
>equally between valid office seekers 3 weeks before the vote. This
>would equalize their odds and help rule out curried favors.
Yes. Not bad. No matter who puts it in, it goes in the pot, which gets sliced
as soon as it gels...and is doled out to acceptable candidates (who sets the
acceptability rules, though?).
At the same time, we need some kinds of timing limits, similar to the system
the Brits use. 90 days and no more. Anyone, incumbent or otherwise, who tries
campaigning ahead of time is automatically penalized...say 250,000 votes per
incident in Presidential elections; 75,000 votes per incident in Congressional
runs for the bucks.
Charlie Self
"In the final choice a soldier's pack is not so heavy as a prisoner's chains."
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > They just said "Money" is not speech. Why should we keep selling our government
> > to the highest bidder?
> >
>
>
> No, what they said is that if a candidate makes a statement, or even
> worse, doesn't, regarding a position, you are not allowed to pool your
> resources with others in your community 60 days before an election to
> dispute that viewpoint and point out that an alternative exists in
> another candidate. What this ruling has done is prevent the ability of
> groups who may be concerned about a candidate's position on a certain
> issue from presenting that concern to the public via radio or television
> ads prior to the election. The rationale for this is that the public
> may be too @#$% stupid to make up their own mind regarding the validity
> of the viewpoints presented -- in direct contravention of what the
> founders intended, assuming that the electorate should be able to engage
> in free discourse regarding issues relevant to political speech.
> However, the existing media is free to present whatever viewpoint it
> cares to during that time period, and the candidate can buy ad time to
> present his viewpoints -- seems like a clear violation of "congress
> shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
> ... "
>
> This has nothing to do with selling anything to the highest bidder,
> this is preventing anyone other than an incumbent, a challenger, or the
> existing press from expressing a viewpoint.
In theory this may be true. In reality what actually happens is,
given
the price of air time (radio/tv), an often complex issue is pared
down to a 30 to 60 second media spot with 3 of the last seconds
used to identify who is paying for the spot. The latter more often
than not tells you nothing about who is sponsoring the ad since
they're typically "concerned citizens of (fill in the city. county,
state)" or "citizens against unfair taxes", "citizens for education",
etc.. AND - these "information ads" are often attack ads that come
out a day or two before the election, giving "the fourht estate"
no time to investigate and present the bigger picture.
Campaign finance reform is easy - if you can't vote for them you
can't give them money - period - no infommercials, no information
ads, no full page ads in the paper with no names. If you can't
vote for the candidate you can't give them anything - period.
No corporate donations, no PAC money, no Tribal Council, no
labor union, ... AND - you can't give a candidate more than
$1,000 without making the donation public. If you feel strongly
about a candidate or an issue you should be willing to say
so up front - "I, John Jay Faddingle Heimer Schmidt support this
candidte or issue and am putting my time, money and name out
there for all to see. My reputation as a citizen and a member
of this community speaks for itself."
And while we're at it, let's try and get the "public airways" back
so air time can be devoted to candidates and concerned citizens
presenting information and positions. FCC, where are you?
AND, wouldn't it be nice if "the news" went back to being actual
nws and analysis rather than shouting matches, sensationalism and
flat out ads for major corporations and power brokers? News is
not "entertainment" but is supposed to be information.
BTW - if you have to keep saying "fair and balanced" I begin
to doubt that what comes next is fair or balanced - or even
true. But I'll leave the consolidation of the media for
another time.
charlie b
He/she who dies with the most toys missed the point
Doug Miller wrote:
> In fact, I *don't* get the government I deserve. While this is certainly true
> of the population _as_a_whole_, it equally certainly is not true of those
> individuals such as myself (and yourself, I presume) who take care to vote
> whenever possible for candidates who favor limited government -- only to have
> our votes negated by those of the vast hordes whose only interest in liberty
> is to be free to suck at the public teat.
> I wish more people understood that the Second Amendment is truly the
> keystone of our system of constitutional government:: the Constitution and
> Bill of Rights are nothing more than old pieces of paper, and the rights and
> freedoms they guarantee us only so many empty promises, if we the People lack
> the means to _compel_ a recalcitrant government to honor those guarantees.
IMHO, the 2nd amendment is the only thing that gives the others any
teeth. As long as the population is willing to be led by the nose or
bought by promises, the government we get will be the one the majority
is willing to accept. Politicians lie, it's what they do. The other
thing they do is consolidate power. Unless there are adverse
consequences for those two behaviors, we will never have a government
that isn't corrupt.
OK, rant mode off, sorry.
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:19:48 GMT, "Mark Jerde"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> Today the Supreme court decided that the first amendment right of
>> free speech only applies to pornography but not to political speech.
>
>(URLs from various viewpoints requested.)
>
> -- Mark
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54524-2003Dec10.html
--
- Charles
-
-does not play well with others
Charles writes:
>
>>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>> Today the Supreme court decided that the first amendment right of
>>> free speech only applies to pornography but not to political speech.
>>
>>(URLs from various viewpoints requested.)
>>
>> -- Mark
>>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54524-2003Dec10.html
>
That is one of the most irritating sites to get into that exists. I gave up
after filling out the tail end of the moronic form 4 times, getting to the
article, and having an ad come up. Reload and it goes back to the form.
Charlie Self
"In the final choice a soldier's pack is not so heavy as a prisoner's chains."
Dwight D. Eisenhower
On 11 Dec 2003 07:52:32 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Charles writes:
>
>>
>>>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>> Today the Supreme court decided that the first amendment right of
>>>> free speech only applies to pornography but not to political speech.
>>>
>>>(URLs from various viewpoints requested.)
>>>
>>> -- Mark
>>>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54524-2003Dec10.html
>>
>
>That is one of the most irritating sites to get into that exists. I gave up
>after filling out the tail end of the moronic form 4 times, getting to the
>article, and having an ad come up. Reload and it goes back to the form.
>
>Charlie Self
>
>"In the final choice a soldier's pack is not so heavy as a prisoner's chains."
>Dwight D. Eisenhower
>
>
I have a program, Ad-aware, that killed off the pop-ups as they came
up.
--
- Charles
-
-does not play well with others
Charles writes:
>>
>>That is one of the most irritating sites to get into that exists. I gave up
>>after filling out the tail end of the moronic form 4 times, getting to the
>>article, and having an ad come up. Reload and it goes back to the form.
>>
>>Charlie Self
>>
>>"In the final choice a soldier's pack is not so heavy as a prisoner's
>chains."
>>Dwight D. Eisenhower
>>
>>
>
>I have a program, Ad-aware, that killed off the pop-ups as they came
>up.
These are not pop-ups. They are part of a form that the Post insists you fill
out to get access to their paper. It has some flaws.
I had forgotten how irritating it was. I hope I don't again.
Charlie Self
"In the final choice a soldier's pack is not so heavy as a prisoner's chains."
Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> These are not pop-ups. They are part of a form that the Post insists you fill
> out to get access to their paper. It has some flaws.
>
> I had forgotten how irritating it was. I hope I don't again.
>
-----------
When I tried it it only asked for gender, year of birth and country I was in.
Then off it went to the page. No forms, no adds nothing. My firewall may have
killed the adds but it doesn't kill forms.
Try telling them you are in the UK.
gandalf wrote:
> Try telling them you are in the UK.
I always tell everyone I'm from Upper Slobobia.
Jenny Qztpxrn
555B Blarzwtfzl Frztwp, Qztrn Faz
Upper Slobobia, 90210
22-44-66-88-867-5309
:)
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
[email protected] (PC Gameplayer) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Mark & Juanita wrote:
> > > Today the Supreme court decided that the first amendment right of
> > > free speech only applies to pornography but not to political speech.
> >
> > (URLs from various viewpoints requested.)
> >
>
> http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1674.pdf
>
> Straight from the horse's mouth. Interesting reading, even if it is
> 298 pages and there's a lot of notation I don't really understand.
> You can get the jist of it, though...
>
> Jim
Interesting hearing Mitch McConnell equate free-speech with purchased
influence, for some years. Get rid of all this influence-peddling,
and watch voters emerge. All the $-chasing is well beyond porno-
simple prostitution.
In fact, the court said that prevention of corruption trumped the
free-speech arguments that were made. John
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
> > Today the Supreme court decided that the first amendment right of
> > free speech only applies to pornography but not to political speech.
>
> (URLs from various viewpoints requested.)
>
> -- Mark
>
>
>
How about a link to the Supreme Court decision?
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/mcconnell_fec.pdf
Don't worry, just because it is a Foxnews link, the pdf file is a copy
of the actual ruling, including the dissenting opinions.
[email protected] (Greg) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> They just said "Money" is not speech. Why should we keep selling our government
> to the highest bidder?
I agree that money is not speech, but money is personal property, and
they're telling people what they can do with their own property.
It's a property rights issue.
You don't think billion dollar election cycles (the rate in 2000) are actually
limiting the ability of normal people to have their voices heard?
How will the pittance any of us could come up with be heard over the roar of a
PAC that is throwing a few million dollars in untraceable funds at the
candidates?
Elections cost too much money and that assures that the rich are the only ones
who have their voices heard.
> Elections cost too much money and that assures that the rich are the only ones who have their voices heard.
Riiight. And that's why a guy like George Soros can pledge millions
of his own money even AFTER this so-called "reform" has passed. Yeah,
the law sure took care of that. (sarcasm off).
What this has really done has insured that elections will held to the
2 party system, unless another guy like Ross Perot comes around with
his own millions.
Honestly, when did politians last pass a law which LIMITED their own
power? This thing passed with bipartisan support because it benefits
both major parties by limiting the dollars that the 3rd parties will
be able to spend.
You've all been tricked, good and hard.
Greg wrote:
> You don't think billion dollar election cycles (the rate in 2000) are actually
> limiting the ability of normal people to have their voices heard?
> How will the pittance any of us could come up with be heard over the roar of a
> PAC that is throwing a few million dollars in untraceable funds at the
> candidates?
> Elections cost too much money and that assures that the rich are the only ones
> who have their voices heard.
Oh Pluuuuueeeze. The "normal people" are a bunch of mooching slugs who
get the government to handout billions every year in "free" benefits.
They cost this country not only money but its very liberty. Witness,
for example, the recent elderly coup which gives them "free"
drugs at the expense of their children and grandchildren. Money
is property. Taking it by the force of taxation and giving
it to another citizen (instead of only taking what is needed to
keep us all _free_) is _theft_, nothing more, and the Sheeple
do it on a WAY larger scale than any rich person could hope to.
The "normal" people _do_ have their "voices heard" in the form of
iniquitous amounts of goverment-sponsored grift and outright theft.
Over half the Federal budget is entitlement programs (the very name
turns my stomach) and that number will likely grow.
The worst corporate financial abuse, the most overt paying-for-votes
scheme, do not begin to compare to the screwing of the American liberty
and treasury indulged by our fellow citizens.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
In article <[email protected]>, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Today the Supreme court decided that the first amendment right of free
>speech only applies to pornography but not to political speech.
It's time to throw all their damn tea in the harbor again.
--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
In article <[email protected]>, jake@di\/ersify.com wrote:
>Another way to slow corruption is to communalize troughs, banning
>individual contributions to a given candidate. All campaign money
>for an office would go into a single till and would be divvied up
>equally between valid office seekers 3 weeks before the vote. This
>would equalize their odds and help rule out curried favors.
There are at least two problems with that approach:
1) Who determines who is, and who is not, a "valid office seeker"? The
opportunities for graft and corruption there are at least as great as they are
now.
2) Funding election campaigns with public money, that is, with the taxpayers'
money, compels at least some, if not most, of the populace to fund the
election campaigns of candidates whose views they oppose. Any way you look at
it, that's just wrong.
--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
> > Today the Supreme court decided that the first amendment right of
> > free speech only applies to pornography but not to political speech.
>
> (URLs from various viewpoints requested.)
>
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1674.pdf
Straight from the horse's mouth. Interesting reading, even if it is
298 pages and there's a lot of notation I don't really understand.
You can get the jist of it, though...
Jim
In article <[email protected]>, barry@sme-
online.com says...
> [email protected] (PC Gameplayer) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Mark & Juanita wrote:
> > > > Today the Supreme court decided that the first amendment right of
> > > > free speech only applies to pornography but not to political speech.
> > >
> > > (URLs from various viewpoints requested.)
> > >
> >
> > http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1674.pdf
> >
> > Straight from the horse's mouth. Interesting reading, even if it is
> > 298 pages and there's a lot of notation I don't really understand.
> > You can get the jist of it, though...
> >
> > Jim
>
> Interesting hearing Mitch McConnell equate free-speech with purchased
> influence, for some years. Get rid of all this influence-peddling,
> and watch voters emerge. All the $-chasing is well beyond porno-
> simple prostitution.
>
> In fact, the court said that prevention of corruption trumped the
> free-speech arguments that were made. John
That's exactly the point. The SC said that prevention of corruption,
or even the *appearance of corruption* gave the government sufficient
compelling need to abrogate the abridgement of free speech. Read the
dissenting opinions from all three justices who wrote those opinions.
This is scary stuff -- the constitution doesn't say, "Congress shall
make no law, unless there is compelling need, to abridge free speech"
All this talk of corporate speech is nothing but whitewash and mis-
direction. This law applies to anybody -- why do think two bitter
rivals like the NRA and Anti-Christian Lawyers' Union actually joined
forces to oppose this law? This law means that if a candidate hides his
opinion or record on any position that might cost him votes, regardless
of the side of the politcal spectrum on which it may reside, and given a
willingly complicit and friendly media, *nobody* can take out an ad 60
days before the election that raises this issue so that voters can make
a decision beyond the candidate's "vote for me, I'm a nice guy" ads.
Get that, *nobody*, not Greenpeace, not the Sierra Club, not the NRA,
not the ACLU -- nobody but the candidate's opponent, or the officially
government sanctioned media can raise this issue. To address the reason
why a candidate's opponent may not raise the issue, consider that some
issues can cost the opponent votes from the other side that they may not
be willing to lose. Historically, this has occurred with a host of
thorny issues. Thus, voters are denied a source of information that
prevents them from being able to make an informed decision. Voters are
smart enough to sift the sources -- the government is now saying that
voters are too stupid to be able to do so and that we should only trust
the sources that they have officially sanctioned in CFR.
>
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> They just said "Money" is not speech. Why should we keep selling our government
> to the highest bidder?
>
No, what they said is that if a candidate makes a statement, or even
worse, doesn't, regarding a position, you are not allowed to pool your
resources with others in your community 60 days before an election to
dispute that viewpoint and point out that an alternative exists in
another candidate. What this ruling has done is prevent the ability of
groups who may be concerned about a candidate's position on a certain
issue from presenting that concern to the public via radio or television
ads prior to the election. The rationale for this is that the public
may be too @#$% stupid to make up their own mind regarding the validity
of the viewpoints presented -- in direct contravention of what the
founders intended, assuming that the electorate should be able to engage
in free discourse regarding issues relevant to political speech.
However, the existing media is free to present whatever viewpoint it
cares to during that time period, and the candidate can buy ad time to
present his viewpoints -- seems like a clear violation of "congress
shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
... "
This has nothing to do with selling anything to the highest bidder,
this is preventing anyone other than an incumbent, a challenger, or the
existing press from expressing a viewpoint.
Greg wrote:
> This has nothing to do with a few neighbors passing the hat to buy a TV spot,
> unless your neighbors are all millionaires. This is all about very rich people
> sending huge untraceable bribes to political parties.
Nonsense. This is about whether or not your right to express/support
your political views (a freedom _affirmed_ by the 1st Amendment, NOT
_granted_ by it) is equally available to rich and poor people alike.
Today, the Supremes decided that rich people have _fewer_ rights than
everyone else and decided to enforce this horror my infringing upon the
freedoms of _everyone_ ... a truly sad day for Liberty in America.
We are never overcome by Tyranny ... we march to it willingly.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>>>And I have a really hard time seeing how it is the government's business
>>>how and where any citizen chooses to spend their own money so long
>>>as doing so does not involve fraud, force, or threat.
>>
>>I'll have to agree with you on this. But the last part of your
>>sentence, IMHO, reinforces the reason why the SC made the decision it
>>did. Another poster made the point that the contributions the SC
>>concerned themselves with are probably outside the range of what most
>>of us here can (or would) contribute. And from looking at the
>>decision...well, I wouldn't say they concerned themselves with "fraud,
>>force, or threat", but there was definitely an overriding concern of
>>
>
> When, for example, the Nat'l Assoc. of Manufacturers opposes or backs a
> bill with TV ads purporting to be from "Concerned Citizens for ...", I
> call that fraud. And I'm not picking on the NAM, I could just as easily
> said the NEA, the AFL-CIO, Tyson Farms, etc..
>
> And the whole issue could be mostly solved by just banning political ads
> from everything but the newspapers. Not only that, you'd have to be able
> to read to know who to vote for - Awwwwww.
>
> Come to think of it, you could ban ads there as well. Then a politician
> would have to say something newsworthy to get in print :-).
>
With all due respect, I find this response just chilling. The right to
express oneself individually or collectively on political matters is
fundamental to maintaining a free society. That's why it says,
"Congress shall make _NO_ law ..." in the First Amendment.
This whole business about Big Bad Evil Money corrupting the system is
ridiculous on its face anyway. The US Federal budget is in the
neighborhood of $2 Trillion last I looked. About half of it ($1 Trillion)
is in entitlements (mostly Medicare, Medicade, and Social Security with
a good measure of various do-gooding thrown in for fun). That is,
$1 Trillion is being spent to give the voters "free" stuff. That far exceeds
any influence the very richest people could ever hope to buy. No, it
is the various flavor of moochers that do the most corrupting damage to the
system.
Sure, there are people that game the system. Crime and corruption are a
part of the human experience. But just because we cannot make it perfect
does not mean we should throw out our civil liberties in some vain attempt
to "clean things up". This law will do nothing to stop political corruption
in much the same way that gun control legislation does nothing to stop
crime. You _cannot_ stop evil by attacking its tools, only by going after
the _persons_ doing the evil. What these kinds of laws _do_ enable, is
the further empowering of the ruling class and a dimunition of personal
freedom thereby. As others here have noted, CFR is no such thing - it is
a way to further entrench the established parties in the face of increasing
public dissatisfaction with them.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Vote Libertarian indeed. But know that the enemny of freedom is not
> primarily he rich man, it is your mooching neighbor next door who wants
> to live life irresponsibly and then have you pay for the damages.
Who the hell are you, and what the hell are you doing inside my head?
Thank you, Tim. I hereby claim you as my evil twin.
Kevin
In article <[email protected]>, Mutt
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > Nonsense. This is about whether or not your right to express/support
> > your political views (a freedom _affirmed_ by the 1st Amendment, NOT
> > _granted_ by it) is equally available to rich and poor people alike.
> > Today, the Supremes decided that rich people have _fewer_ rights than
> > everyone else and decided to enforce this horror my infringing upon the
> > freedoms of _everyone_ ... a truly sad day for Liberty in America.
>
> Wait a minute, limits on campaign contributions have been held
> constitutional for some time,
Plessey v. Ferguson established that racial discrimination was
perfectly lawful and constitutional from 1896 until 1954 (Brown V.
Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas).
So, by ". . . for some time", do you claim that a ruling is
automatically correct?
If so, there are probably some descendants of former slave owners who
would like to claim the "property" that was confiscated from them.
Where can they contact you for remuneration?
Kevin
> Nonsense. This is about whether or not your right to express/support
> your political views (a freedom _affirmed_ by the 1st Amendment, NOT
> _granted_ by it) is equally available to rich and poor people alike.
> Today, the Supremes decided that rich people have _fewer_ rights than
> everyone else and decided to enforce this horror my infringing upon the
> freedoms of _everyone_ ... a truly sad day for Liberty in America.
Wait a minute, limits on campaign contributions have been held
constitutional for some time, and the soft money angle was nothing
more than an angle for politicians to accept bribes, plain and simple.
Individual candidates would get financial support from the major
parties, and not spend funds they raised individually. Betcha didn't
know when a congressman or senator retires, and they have a balance in
their campaign fund, they get to keep the money!! Bribery, pure and
simple. Get over it. If you want to express your opinion, go stand
on a street corner on a box and have at it. Saying soft money is an
expression of political speech by proxy is functionally equal to
avoiding the draft by paying someone else to take your place. If you
feel you have a duty to exercise your first amendment rights, then do
it.
Kevin Craig wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Vote Libertarian indeed. But know that the enemny of freedom is not
>>primarily he rich man, it is your mooching neighbor next door who wants
>>to live life irresponsibly and then have you pay for the damages.
>
>
> Who the hell are you, and what the hell are you doing inside my head?
>
> Thank you, Tim. I hereby claim you as my evil twin.
>
> Kevin
If you're rich, I accept! If not, we'll just agree to be virtual
echoes here :)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
David J Bockman wrote:
> Seen another way, this is about political parties (read, the Democrats &
> Republicans) accepting huge untraceable 'bribes' and then doing the bidding
> of the very rich people.
>
> Vote Libertarian,
>
> Dave
>
I almost always do vote Libertarian and as such I also defend the right
of _every_ citizen rich or poor to spend their money as they wish so
long as: a) It is _their_ money and b) They are not doing something
fraudulent, forceful, or threatening with it. You can't just espouse
Libertarian principle for everyone except the rich and remain
consistent.
The idea that the rich are the primary instrument of government
corruption is laughable in any case. Politicians do what they have to in
order to remain in office. The biggest 'bribes' they accept are the
votes of the Mooching Sheeple who all want Something For Nothing. Every
year billions of public monies are given to people standing in line for
"their" handouts. The suburban housewife who demands a new soccer field,
the parent who feeds their child tons of fast food and then wants
government interdiction because the kid is fat, the farmer who can't
remain competitive and wants subsidies, and the steel worker who thinks
they are entitled to be insulated from the realities of the global
market - _these_ are the people who corrupt government. About 1/2 of the
Federal US budget is now handouts of one sort or another. This will
likely grow considerably now that the elderly and almost elderly have
voted themselves the "right" to "free" drugs on the backs of their
children and grandchildren.
Vote Libertarian indeed. But know that the enemny of freedom is not
primarily he rich man, it is your mooching neighbor next door who wants
to live life irresponsibly and then have you pay for the damages.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
PC Gameplayer wrote:
<SNIP>
> I have a really hard time seeing how not being able to give tons and
> tons of money to a party (remember--this affects soft contributions
> directed toward a party, not an individual candidate) restricts free
> speech rights. Hey...what ever happened to a party energizing their
And I have a really hard time seeing how it is the government's business
how and where any citizen chooses to spend their own money so long
as doing so does not involve fraud, force, or threat. This decision
does nothing more than futher enfranchise the power of government
over the free activities of the citizenry while hiding behind
"corruption" control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
In article <[email protected]>, jtj3
@hotmail.com says...
> > Nonsense. This is about whether or not your right to express/support
> > your political views (a freedom _affirmed_ by the 1st Amendment, NOT
> > _granted_ by it) is equally available to rich and poor people alike.
> > Today, the Supremes decided that rich people have _fewer_ rights than
> > everyone else
> <snip>
>
> Sorry, no, but they *didn't*. What the court affirmed is that:
>
> "...contribution limits 'entai[l] only a marginal restriction
> upon the contributor's ability to engage in free communication...".
> (p.3 of the decision)
>
So you don't see a major problem here? When the first amendment says,
"Congress shall make NO law ..." it's OK for the court that is supposed
to uphold and defend that constitution to say "only a marginal
restriction upon ... " is OK? What you going to say when they start
deciding that some of the things you think are freedoms granted to you
should be subject to some "marginal" restrictions?
Take a look at the dissenting opinions.
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:17:55 -0800, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> brought forth from the murky depths:
>Come to think of it, you could ban ads there as well. Then a politician
>would have to say something newsworthy to get in print :-).
Sacre bleu! Everything in print now is _newsworthy_?
Society has fallen further than I had ever imagined.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
When I die, I'm leaving my body to science fiction. --Steven Wright
----------------------------
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
> Nonsense. This is about whether or not your right to express/support
> your political views (a freedom _affirmed_ by the 1st Amendment, NOT
> _granted_ by it) is equally available to rich and poor people alike.
> Today, the Supremes decided that rich people have _fewer_ rights than
> everyone else
<snip>
Sorry, no, but they *didn't*. What the court affirmed is that:
"...contribution limits 'entai[l] only a marginal restriction
upon the contributor's ability to engage in free communication...".
(p.3 of the decision)
Later in the decision the court restates a previous ruling that "The
quantity of communication by the contributor does not increase
perceptibly with the size of the contribution, since the expression
rests solely on the undifferentiated, symbolic act of
contributing." (p. 43).
The decision did also say that contribution limits impose restrictions
on free speech *only* when they are so low as to prevent candidates
from "...amassing the resources necessary for effective advocacy", and
that "...the 'overall effect' of dollar limits on contributions
is 'merely to require
candidates and political committees to raise funds from a greater
number of persons.'"
I have a really hard time seeing how not being able to give tons and
tons of money to a party (remember--this affects soft contributions
directed toward a party, not an individual candidate) restricts free
speech rights. Hey...what ever happened to a party energizing their
followers to get out and go door to door, or mount a phone campaign,
or send letters?
I found the full decision here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1674.pdf
[email protected] (Greg) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> The law also only affects soft money contributions in excess of $25,000 per
> donor to a party or $2,000 to each candidate. I think that is out of the range
> of anyone here.
Typically the effects of a USSC ruling extend beyond the specific case
(and law) being considered.
--
FF
Hi Tim:
> And I have a really hard time seeing how it is the government's business
> how and where any citizen chooses to spend their own money so long
> as doing so does not involve fraud, force, or threat.
I'll have to agree with you on this. But the last part of your
sentence, IMHO, reinforces the reason why the SC made the decision it
did. Another poster made the point that the contributions the SC
concerned themselves with are probably outside the range of what most
of us here can (or would) contribute. And from looking at the
decision...well, I wouldn't say they concerned themselves with "fraud,
force, or threat", but there was definitely an overriding concern of
undue influence on the part of "deep pockets" contributors.
This decision
> does nothing more than futher enfranchise the power of government
> over the free activities of the citizenry while hiding behind
> "corruption" control.
I'll have to respectfully disagree with you here. Again, since the
contribution limits are set above $25K per party/$2000 per candidate,
I think that's mostly outside the range of what "the citizenry" would
give.
And it's like having a teenager complain about the fact that, since
they don't have a car, they can't go to the mall. Hey...they can
walk, they can take a bus, they can call a friend, they can ride a
bike, etc. If you did have more than $2000 laying around to give to a
candidate, you can't--but you can still exercise your free speech
rights to support the candidate or party of your choice in any other
way (door to door, calling, etc.).
Jim
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> > And I have a really hard time seeing how it is the government's business
> > how and where any citizen chooses to spend their own money so long
> > as doing so does not involve fraud, force, or threat.
>
> I'll have to agree with you on this. But the last part of your
> sentence, IMHO, reinforces the reason why the SC made the decision it
> did. Another poster made the point that the contributions the SC
> concerned themselves with are probably outside the range of what most
> of us here can (or would) contribute. And from looking at the
> decision...well, I wouldn't say they concerned themselves with "fraud,
> force, or threat", but there was definitely an overriding concern of
>
When, for example, the Nat'l Assoc. of Manufacturers opposes or backs a
bill with TV ads purporting to be from "Concerned Citizens for ...", I
call that fraud. And I'm not picking on the NAM, I could just as easily
said the NEA, the AFL-CIO, Tyson Farms, etc..
And the whole issue could be mostly solved by just banning political ads
from everything but the newspapers. Not only that, you'd have to be able
to read to know who to vote for - Awwwwww.
Come to think of it, you could ban ads there as well. Then a politician
would have to say something newsworthy to get in print :-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
<jake@di\/ersify.com> says...
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:17:55 -0800, Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> brought forth from the murky depths:
>
> >Come to think of it, you could ban ads there as well. Then a politician
> >would have to say something newsworthy to get in print :-).
>
> Sacre bleu! Everything in print now is _newsworthy_?
> Society has fallen further than I had ever imagined.
>
OK, I stand corrected :-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
[email protected] (PC Gameplayer) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> If you did have more than $2000 laying around to give to a
> candidate, you can't--but you can still exercise your free speech
> rights to support the candidate or party of your choice in any other
> way (door to door, calling, etc.).
>
>
That is to say you are free to use less effective means to communicate
your opinion. I don't find that acceptable.
But will the law stop the wealthy from running political ads
independently from the parties and candidates? How much does
it cast a newpaper to print and distribute their endorsements?
If, 30 days before the election I want to spend 20,000 on
advertising that says 'These candidates stink, vote for Pat
Paulsen for President' can I?
--
FF
In article <[email protected]>, biggmutt53
@aol.com says...
> > Nonsense. This is about whether or not your right to express/support
> > your political views (a freedom _affirmed_ by the 1st Amendment, NOT
> > _granted_ by it) is equally available to rich and poor people alike.
> > Today, the Supremes decided that rich people have _fewer_ rights than
> > everyone else and decided to enforce this horror my infringing upon the
> > freedoms of _everyone_ ... a truly sad day for Liberty in America.
>
> Wait a minute, limits on campaign contributions have been held
> constitutional for some time, and the soft money angle was nothing
> more than an angle for politicians to accept bribes, plain and simple.
> Individual candidates would get financial support from the major
> parties, and not spend funds they raised individually. Betcha didn't
> know when a congressman or senator retires, and they have a balance in
> their campaign fund, they get to keep the money!! Bribery, pure and
> simple. Get over it. If you want to express your opinion, go stand
> on a street corner on a box and have at it. Saying soft money is an
> expression of political speech by proxy is functionally equal to
> avoiding the draft by paying someone else to take your place. If you
> feel you have a duty to exercise your first amendment rights, then do
> it.
>
.. and how do I do that in today's society? The medium of choice to
get a message out is through the mass media, specifically television if
I want to reach the most people. That costs money. If I want to make
a political statement that such and such a candidate holds a view that I
don't agree with, guess what, I can't do that 60 days before an election
-- (I'm not sure that even a private VERY WEALTHY -- which is just he
opposite of what you are trying to achieve -- person can legally take
out an issue ad with his own money if he's going to mention a federal
candidate), and I certainly can't pool my money with others' money to
take out such an ad.
What this act does is essentially help protect a) the current two-
party system, and b) even more importantly protects incumbents.
If you're worried about corruption, there are already laws against
corruption and influence pedaling (as pointed out by Scalia, Souder, and
Kennedy). The idea that this is a first step is even more frightening,
this is something like the third step, trying to close down secondary
and tertiary behaviors when the primary behaviors were banned by
original campaign finance reform laws.
PC Gameplayer wrote:
> Hi Tim:
>
>
>>And I have a really hard time seeing how it is the government's business
>>how and where any citizen chooses to spend their own money so long
>>as doing so does not involve fraud, force, or threat.
>
>
> I'll have to agree with you on this. But the last part of your
> sentence, IMHO, reinforces the reason why the SC made the decision it
> did. Another poster made the point that the contributions the SC
> concerned themselves with are probably outside the range of what most
> of us here can (or would) contribute. And from looking at the
> decision...well, I wouldn't say they concerned themselves with "fraud,
> force, or threat", but there was definitely an overriding concern of
> undue influence on the part of "deep pockets" contributors.
>
> This decision
>
>>does nothing more than futher enfranchise the power of government
>>over the free activities of the citizenry while hiding behind
>>"corruption" control.
>
>
> I'll have to respectfully disagree with you here. Again, since the
> contribution limits are set above $25K per party/$2000 per candidate,
> I think that's mostly outside the range of what "the citizenry" would
> give.
This is irrelevant as a matter of principle. Either we have the freedom
to dispose voluntarily of our assets as we see fit or we do not. The
fact that some people game the system does not make it suddenly OK for
the Supremes to take away yet more liberty from the individual. As I've
said elswhere in this thread, the deep pockets contributors are _not_ the
ones tilting the system - it is the many flavors of public mooching that
does that.
If the Congress Critters really want to address undue influence (the
don't) they would all agree to sign a simple, clear, ethics statement
when they are sworn in. They could even write a law which specifies this
in detail - what _they_ can, and cannot do both during office and
thereafter as regards to their contributors. This would at least be
voluntary and would not have the effect of trashing the 1st Amendment
for everyone else. But, of course, the Congress wants no such thing. As
always, they negotiate away the freedoms of the larger citizenry to make
themselves look noble, while changing nothing of substance.
This week's decision by the Supremes is nothing more than a further
erosion of our liberty with absolutely _no_ upside. Anyone who thinks
that CFR has changed anything of substance for those inclined to game
the system is really kidding themselves. As usual, the Bad Guys will get
a pass while the Good Guys give up freedom, and the larger population
sleeps through it until it is too late. Inch by inch we are crawling
towards the misery of a totalatarian state - most of the Bill Of Rights
is under attack by both the Left and the Right, and now we can't even
count on the Supreme Court itself to vigorously defend the Constitution
as they are sworn to do. Go back and look at the history of Stalinist
Russia and Hitler's Germany - they had constitutions too - and together
they managed to butcher upwards of 100 Million people in less than a
couple of generations. History _does_ repeat itself, God help us...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Mutt wrote:
>>Nonsense. This is about whether or not your right to express/support
>>your political views (a freedom _affirmed_ by the 1st Amendment, NOT
>>_granted_ by it) is equally available to rich and poor people alike.
>>Today, the Supremes decided that rich people have _fewer_ rights than
>>everyone else and decided to enforce this horror my infringing upon the
>>freedoms of _everyone_ ... a truly sad day for Liberty in America.
>
>
> Wait a minute, limits on campaign contributions have been held
> constitutional for some time, and the soft money angle was nothing
That was wrong as well.
> more than an angle for politicians to accept bribes, plain and simple.
> Individual candidates would get financial support from the major
> parties, and not spend funds they raised individually. Betcha didn't
> know when a congressman or senator retires, and they have a balance in
> their campaign fund, they get to keep the money!! Bribery, pure and
Yes, I did know.
> simple. Get over it. If you want to express your opinion, go stand
> on a street corner on a box and have at it. Saying soft money is an
> expression of political speech by proxy is functionally equal to
> avoiding the draft by paying someone else to take your place. If you
> feel you have a duty to exercise your first amendment rights, then do
> it.
I won't be able to 60 days inside a window of an election - at least
I won't be able to if I want to pool my resources along with others
who share my views and call it a "politcal party" or "special interest
group" or what have you.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Seen another way, this is about political parties (read, the Democrats &
Republicans) accepting huge untraceable 'bribes' and then doing the bidding
of the very rich people.
Vote Libertarian,
Dave
"Greg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This has nothing to do with a few neighbors passing the hat to buy a TV
spot,
> unless your neighbors are all millionaires. This is all about very rich
people
> sending huge untraceable bribes to political parties.
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Today the Supreme court decided that the first amendment right of free
> speech only applies to pornography but not to political speech. From
> their decision: "Thus, the Court examines the degree to which BCRA
> burdens First Amendment expression and evaluates whether a com-
> pelling governmental interest justifies that burden. " So now the
> government can determine whether a compelling government interest exists
> to limit freedom of speech. And that compelling interest can either be
> to "prevent corruption or even the appearance of corruption" The foot
> is in the door, a sad day indeed.
For as long as I can rememeber those have been the tests. If the
law imposes no burden on the speaker then there is no issue. IF
the law does impose a burden then the issue is sufficient compelling
interest.
For example, the government is generally considered to have a sufficient
compelling interest in the truthfulness of sworn testimony that laws
which punish perjury pass constitutional muster. But politicians,
when they are not under oath, may lie with impunity, indeed such
dishonesty is the cornerstone of our two party oligarchy.
--
FF
In article <[email protected]>, reply-to, is, disabled wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> It's time to throw all their damn tea in the harbor again.
>
>Just remember, you get the government you deserve.
In fact, I *don't* get the government I deserve. While this is certainly true
of the population _as_a_whole_, it equally certainly is not true of those
individuals such as myself (and yourself, I presume) who take care to vote
whenever possible for candidates who favor limited government -- only to have
our votes negated by those of the vast hordes whose only interest in liberty
is to be free to suck at the public teat.
> Exercise your 2nd amendment rights while you've still got them.
I wish more people understood that the Second Amendment is truly the
keystone of our system of constitutional government:: the Constitution and
Bill of Rights are nothing more than old pieces of paper, and the rights and
freedoms they guarantee us only so many empty promises, if we the People lack
the means to _compel_ a recalcitrant government to honor those guarantees.
--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?