Time to fix McCain-Feingold / Campaign Finance

I agree that the advertising is over the top this election season. Whenever I see an add that transposes a candidate's face with lines of coke, or shady looking foreign people, or tries to tie them to rapists and child molesters, I make a conscious not to vote for that candidate unless I see something equally slimy from them. And I'm tired of hearing from candidates that they can't stop these nasties. I don't believe them, for one thing. If this is happening because of a McCain-Feingold loophole then I agree that something needs to be done about it.

What would be reasonable okie?

Anyone can spend as much money as they want?

Or should we put restrictions on who can spend on behalf of candidates and when they can spend it?

The "loophole" is that the USSC has ruled that money is the same thing as speech.

Perhaps we should let anyone spend as much money as they want to but then allow them to be sued for slander if they are not completely truthful in an ad.

For instance if someone says a particular candidate voted against some issue they must cite that bill in large enough letters and for a long enough time period that any viewer can write it down.

All donations to any group MUST be made public before they can run an ad. The people that donate to that group are all personally responsible for what the group puts out. They can be personally sued.

That would get rid of most of the attack ads in real short order.

Re: Time to fix McCain-Feingold / Campaign Finance

The statute in question
violates the First Amendment 4 different ways.
It was a scandal that the USSC let it stand,
for a while, as Sandy O 'Connor decided.

First government violates the Second Amendment,
and now it also violates the First Amendment;
is ANY part of the Constitution safe ???
Campaign Finance Reform is a violation
of the most basic American freedom,
and makes a joke of the concept that America is a free country
when we only have freedom of speech now n then.

The statute is an unconstitutional disgrace.
It shud be repealed n forgotten.
David

U shud not vote for anyone u don 't wanna vote for,
for ANY reason, or for no reason.
However, he has a right to campaign for office
however he chooses; its HIS campaign, not yours.




OK; suppose that u decide to run for dog-catcher,
and I buy some TV ads favoring u or opposing u.
( Suppose I accuse u of being prejudiced against Mexican Chihuahuas. )

Maybe u think that we shud just FORGET the 1st Amendment
and u shud be able to STIFLE me ??

America has had enuf of free speech, u think ??

David

And it's my vote he wants and won't get by resorting to sleaze.




Maybe I think that there should be truth in advertising. Maybe I think that accusing me of being prejudiced agains Mexican Chihuahuas is one thing, but that superimposing my face over an image of a guy humping one is going over the line. You can't call me a dog humper because that would be slander and/or lible -- not sure which -- but you can strongly suggest that I favor dog-humpers.

This I pulled from a website:

"The two principal provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation are Title I, which bans political party soft money, and Title II (the Snowe-Jeffords provision) which bans the use of corporate and labor union funds to pay for broadcast ads that refer to federal candidates in the sixty day period before an election, and requires disclosure for such ads run by other groups and by individuals."

How much sense does it make to prohibit political parties, while at the same time the 527's go hog wild with their nonsense? It seems to me that the political parties are the ones that should have total free speech to get their message out.

Actually Parados, I don't have a good handle on this mess, as to the actual legislation, I just know that things have gotten worse. Some of my key beliefs include the following:

- Money is necessary to get the message out, and therefore should be considered part of free speech, therefore McCain-Feingold is not constitutional.

- Political parties should be allowed to raise as much money as they can from individuals, and all of it should be public record.

- Organizations, such as corporations, unions and other entities that exist for non-political reasons, and that represent people of all political stripes, such as unions, AARP, and others, should not be allowed to endorse, spend dues, or campaign for partisan issues and candidates, as that is a clear abuse and misuse of the funds and dues given to them. I think this should also include environmental groups, as their concern is nature, supposedly, not politics. I believe individuals should be donating directly to political parties and candidates as they see fit, not groups. After all, unions, corporations, and other groups do not vote, individuals do.

- Bottom line, any organization specifically formed to push an agenda should be open and up-front as to their supporters, donations, and disclosure.

- Campaigns, as advertising, should not be able to be sued for what might be considered slanted or partisan opinions. People have to have some responsibility in figuring out who is more credible. That is our job, and always has been a part of political campaigns. If people become too stupid to judge rightly, then perhaps they deserve the corruption they get.

I admit to not studying the issue in great depth, Parados, but McCain Feingold should be rescinded and then we can start over. Finally, some of the previous laws already in place before McCain Feingold, such as no funds from foreign groups, have not been enforced, because if they had, Clinton would be in jail right now.

According to the Bill of Rights,
government has no authority to constrict freedom of speech EVER,
any more than it has authority to interfere with anyone defending his LIFE,
or possessing the means to do that.
The First and Second Amendments both say what thay mean
and mean what thay say, and THAT is the Supreme Law of the Land.
David

bm

Of course, you could always change this by supporting Public Financing of elections.

Cycloptichorn

I do not support public financing for candidates across the board, as this violates my rights by using my tax monies to support political candidates that I disagree with. Forced donations to candidates are not free speech. If I volunteer, that is a different story.

Admittedly, this is a thorny issue, but anyone that believes you can take the money out of this is just wrong. We live in the real world, where money is a means of exchange, which is used for all kinds of things, including advertising, which I think is a form of free speech. And political advertising should not only be a right, but a necessity in maintaining free and open elections. Money is not inherently corrupt. It is the people that are corrupt, which use the money to further their corruption. This is a basic fact that McCain Feingold failed to understand. Instead of picking on the money, we should pick on the corrupt people.

The best way to fix McCain-Feingold
is to respect the First Amendment
by repealing McCain-Feingold
David

One of the biggest reasons not to vote for McCain.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?042307/042307_views_oreilly&OReilly_Factor_Talking_Points&O%27Reilly%3A%20Buying%20political%20power&acc&Bill%20O%26%2339%3BReilly&-1&Opinion&219&&&new

O'Reilly merely summarizes the George Soros problem either not fixed or made worse, which is only one problem with the stupid McCain Feingold legislation. We also believe the bill was not constitutional anyhow.