@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm asking Thomas the same on the other thread: Do you really not care about the effects this will have?
Am I crazy about the idea of big shots buying massive spots to convince ignorant fools who look no further than a myriad of 30 second spots every 4 years to decide who should be King? Of course not. However, M/F was woefully ill equipped to change it anyway. You're still acting like it was working. F-911? Swiftboaters for truth? Any and every other 527 that anyone with deep pockets can put together?
STOP pretending it was working.
And STOP pretending we're now heading into uncharted territory too. We've been on this path for centuries and only briefly took a largely ineffectual detour.
And STOP dodging this: What is the difference between "F-911" and "Hillary the Movie"? Any law that allows those crockumentaries to be distinguished is an abomination in itself… even if it didn’t violate the First Amendment… which this one very definitely did.
Meanwhile, I can stand on my soapbox and advocate at the top of my lunges that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. That’s freedom. That’s worth defending. If I choose to spend my money paying others to stand on soapboxes for me, that’s none of yours, nor your government’s damned business either.
At this same time, Rupert Murdoch can steer an entire herd of sheep 24/7, from sea to shining sea and there isn’t a damn thing anyone can do about it. Do you think Congress should try to address that too? Perhaps pass legislation that mandates that all News Stations be truly “Fair and Balanced”? This would be a terrific plan in some utopian fairytale… but not in the real world. In the real world; any such law would then have to be enforced and such enforcement would be up to
someone’s discretion. Whose? Who can we trust to even handedly dole out our most precious freedoms?
If you answer anyone but NO ONE, you’re fooling yourself. Our founding fathers were wise enough to know that if government gets control of information, politicians will do whatever they can to wield that power to their own political advantage. To large extent, it isn’t even just the Left v. Right thing that we have to fear: Whenever it’s politically expedient to do so, both sides will happily unite against the very people they represent. Look at the way the two parties have barricaded the door against 3rd parties for instance. In the 92 election, Ross Perot doubled his following at the Presidential Debates and went on to take 19% of the popular vote, despite making disastrous campaign decisions. So scared were the two major parties in the following election, they barred his inclusion in the 96 debates and in so doing effectively removed any chance of his building enough momentum at the debates to compete, as he did just 4 years before.
And you want me to agree to forfeit some of my First Amendment freedom to these crooked assholes? Do you really think that slope isn’t slippery? Make no mistake, if they can ban distribution of a movie for 60 days; they can do it for longer next time around. This constitutes book burning and it is repugnant to the constitution and our very way of life.
On a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being my soapbox and 10 being Rupert Murdoch’s soapbox; every other entity whose speech may be impeded is a medium-size player… and most every politician seeking to regulate it will be mostly interested steering the rules to favor their own party. **** that. I’ll keep my constitutional rights, thank you very much.
While I actually do believe McCain’s and Feingold’s hearts were in the right place; their bill nonetheless expanded the power of the government into my personal space. Whatever good may come from such usurpation is not worth the risks in my book.
Frankly, I’m probably standing all alone here, but I think the whole business of limiting contributions and/or media is just flat out wrong and probably unconstitutional to boot. Why would we ever be afraid of more information? Barrack Obama probably had over a billion dollars behind his campaign before you even try to assign a value to the multitude of pundits lining up to kiss his ass. He out-spent McCain 2 to 1 and you have to admit it’s worth pondering whether or not we’re really getting what was advertised. At the end of the day, every one of us is responsible for our own lot in life and I don’t see a compelling reason that anyone shouldn’t be able to spend his or her own money any way he or she sees fit.
A better law in my book, would be to simply insist every non human person disclose every penny contributed and to where, to allow human persons to judge these entities actions and contributions for themselves. I don’t believe human persons should be limited in any way and nor do I think human persons should have any requirement to disclose anything. <-- This I believe constitutes a violation of the individual’s 4th amendment right to privacy. In short, I don’t think the government has any business telling me how to spend my money, and I don’t think it’s any of your business either. I’ll respect your rights as well.
The United States is an adversarial place and candidates who can't effectively respond to criticism should simply stand down. It's a shame that lies travel half way around the world before the truth can get its pants on, but it is what it is and it always will be. No matter how well meaning your attempt to regulate good manners into the election process may be, it is an ill-fated endeavor that can only result in some government asshole deciding what is fit for my consumption. Thank you, no, I'd rather make those decisions for myself (while you stand underneath your government umbrella and curse the still inevitable rain.)
