Full Version: Edited
[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
Ump, I'm so frustrated and furious about this. Here's an article from National Review you might find interesting:
National Review on Campaign Finance Reform
National Review on Campaign Finance Reform
Oh, you guys so crazy!
I have never seen such transparent evil on C-SPAN as those phony amendments being offered up, one after another, solely to kill Shays-Meehan. Ari Fleischer saying afterward that Bush deserves most of the credit, when the White House was directing the sabotage behind the scenes, was odious but characteristic...
No, it's not an ideal solution to campaign finance reform ... but it's a start.
I have never seen such transparent evil on C-SPAN as those phony amendments being offered up, one after another, solely to kill Shays-Meehan. Ari Fleischer saying afterward that Bush deserves most of the credit, when the White House was directing the sabotage behind the scenes, was odious but characteristic...
No, it's not an ideal solution to campaign finance reform ... but it's a start.
This whole CFR reminds me of a movie I watched just last night, "The Last Supper." It's about these lefty college kids who accidentally kill a racist conservative (of course, if he's racist, he must be conservative), and then decide they've done the world a great favor. So they start bringing over other conservatives and killing them too - to make the world a better place. (They kill one "conservative" who doesn't like "The Catcher in the Rye".) The movie has an interesting ending, but the setup - if we could just stifle dissent, if we could just silence the opposition, everything would be better - is central to the utopian vision of the finance reformers. And of course they don't have to kill anyone because they can just tell everybody what to do with little or no accountability, and now without even any privately-financed, independent criticism of their actions before an election, when it really matters.
But I really think John McCain should - oops, sorry, probably not a good idea to criticize members of Congress, less they tackle Internet reform.
But I really think John McCain should - oops, sorry, probably not a good idea to criticize members of Congress, less they tackle Internet reform.
The basic problem is the Supreme Court "Buckley" decision that ruled that money is speech. One small problem with that ruling. Money is NOT speech - it's property. Until that gets overturned, we're screwed.
Ah, but money can be speech sometimes, in the form of commercial speech, and thereby subject to governmental regulation. Too bad no court has applied this rationale to panhandling, which is usually protected as "pure" speech. If you want to see the consequences of such unregulated "speech," come spend a few hours walking around downtown San Francisco! Surely the Framers never intended such a result and the modern rulings on pornography as "speech" would likewise cause them further convulsions in their graves!
Ditto-think should be identified as a form of mental illness. It is not an authentic variant of conservative thought. I am halfway through the second volume of Kershaw's biography of Hitler and the consequences of ditto-think can be truly appalling. It is incredibly self-delusory and self-destructive. [John McCain as a commie-symp liberal!!!???]
[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
[quote]Originally posted by Lots-of-us:
The basic problem is the Supreme Court "Buckley" decision that ruled that money is speech. One small problem with that ruling. Money is NOT speech - it's property. Until that gets overturned, we're screwed.
Why is donating money not a form of political speech? If you believe in a political organization's mission, and its message is one that you'd like see disseminated as widely and loudly as possible, how is that not speech? The right to free speech includes the right to the media through which that speech is communicated. The converse is to allow someone to say whatever he wants, but only alone and in a sound-proof room.
In these modern times, to deny or limit funds from political organizations is to curtail their political speech. What if the ACLU wanted to start a letter writing campaign, but some arbitrary law denied them access to the U.S. Mail? What if the Million Mom March on Washington was allowed to congregate on the Mall, but some arbitrary law denied them microphones and loudspeakers?
For $35, I just renewed my membership to the NRA. I believe in the NRA's mission (even though I myself don't own a gun of any kind). To me, almost all gun control measures proposed are a pathetically superficial and ultimately ineffective band-aid on complicated, profound problems in our society. You can disagree all you want, you have every right to think my position is absolutely odious, but guess what? Through my support of the NRA, I have spoken!
I realize the NRA isn't wonderfully popular in many parts of this country. If it truly upsets you that I gave money to the NRA, you are free to donate money to any one of a number of anti-gun groups out there ... that is, until this bill gets passed.
The basic problem is the Supreme Court "Buckley" decision that ruled that money is speech. One small problem with that ruling. Money is NOT speech - it's property. Until that gets overturned, we're screwed.
Why is donating money not a form of political speech? If you believe in a political organization's mission, and its message is one that you'd like see disseminated as widely and loudly as possible, how is that not speech? The right to free speech includes the right to the media through which that speech is communicated. The converse is to allow someone to say whatever he wants, but only alone and in a sound-proof room.
In these modern times, to deny or limit funds from political organizations is to curtail their political speech. What if the ACLU wanted to start a letter writing campaign, but some arbitrary law denied them access to the U.S. Mail? What if the Million Mom March on Washington was allowed to congregate on the Mall, but some arbitrary law denied them microphones and loudspeakers?
For $35, I just renewed my membership to the NRA. I believe in the NRA's mission (even though I myself don't own a gun of any kind). To me, almost all gun control measures proposed are a pathetically superficial and ultimately ineffective band-aid on complicated, profound problems in our society. You can disagree all you want, you have every right to think my position is absolutely odious, but guess what? Through my support of the NRA, I have spoken!
I realize the NRA isn't wonderfully popular in many parts of this country. If it truly upsets you that I gave money to the NRA, you are free to donate money to any one of a number of anti-gun groups out there ... that is, until this bill gets passed.
Bravo, BoSoxRudy!
There should be only strict interpretation of the US Constitution. Here is the Second Amendment in its entirety:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It says what it says. The Founding Fathers placed no caveats there. Any gun-control law should be considered an infringement of that right. (To quote Webster's Dictionary, to infringe upon is to break in on; encroach or tresspass on.)
Why, then, should Congress be allowed to put ANY type of limitation on my right to bear arms? Again according to Webster's, "arms" are "any instrument used in fighting; weapon." If I want to own a handgun, a rifle, a grenade, an assualt weapon, or a bomb, even a nuclear bomb, according to the Second Amendment, I should be allowed to. They are all "arms" aren't they? Who cares if they couldn't have been imagined in the 18th century? The authors of the Constitution didn't say "unless certain arms are invented that could cause mass destruction."
[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: SteveS ]
There should be only strict interpretation of the US Constitution. Here is the Second Amendment in its entirety:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It says what it says. The Founding Fathers placed no caveats there. Any gun-control law should be considered an infringement of that right. (To quote Webster's Dictionary, to infringe upon is to break in on; encroach or tresspass on.)
Why, then, should Congress be allowed to put ANY type of limitation on my right to bear arms? Again according to Webster's, "arms" are "any instrument used in fighting; weapon." If I want to own a handgun, a rifle, a grenade, an assualt weapon, or a bomb, even a nuclear bomb, according to the Second Amendment, I should be allowed to. They are all "arms" aren't they? Who cares if they couldn't have been imagined in the 18th century? The authors of the Constitution didn't say "unless certain arms are invented that could cause mass destruction."
[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: SteveS ]
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
"A well regulated militia ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
Well sorry SteveS -- but the Founding Fathers did supply a caveat in the right to bear arms with that pesky little "regulated" word. We have the right to bear arms in the context of having a "regulated" militia.
And your right to bear nuclear arms is just wrong. It's the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre -- despite your First Amendment freedom of speech.
[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: DCBucky ]
"A well regulated militia ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
Well sorry SteveS -- but the Founding Fathers did supply a caveat in the right to bear arms with that pesky little "regulated" word. We have the right to bear arms in the context of having a "regulated" militia.
And your right to bear nuclear arms is just wrong. It's the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre -- despite your First Amendment freedom of speech.
[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: DCBucky ]
Speaking for myself, I'm a leftist, NOT a liberal.
[quote] Never mind that Benjamin Franklin so wisely and so eloquently once said 200+ years ago that he who gives up a little liberty to achieve some security deserves neither liberty nor security.
Ah Ump, it was the likes of me who were quoting that one when the approval of Rev. Ashcroft's PATRIOT ACT *truly* raped the Constitution.
Why money isn't speech should be apparent -- some folks have it, some don't. (And wickedness and wealth don't coincide, but they correlate as well as on-base % and winning.)
The Founding Slaveholders warned us we could lose our democracy -- and it's been sold.
[quote] Never mind that Benjamin Franklin so wisely and so eloquently once said 200+ years ago that he who gives up a little liberty to achieve some security deserves neither liberty nor security.
Ah Ump, it was the likes of me who were quoting that one when the approval of Rev. Ashcroft's PATRIOT ACT *truly* raped the Constitution.
Why money isn't speech should be apparent -- some folks have it, some don't. (And wickedness and wealth don't coincide, but they correlate as well as on-base % and winning.)
The Founding Slaveholders warned us we could lose our democracy -- and it's been sold.
The huge problem with the Second Amendment is definitely the wording. You can interpret it any way you want to suit your position and then vehemently say that any other interpretation is ludicrous. We can certainly go back and forth about grammar and what the Founding Fathers meant, etc., but that isn't going to solve it. I'm probably one of the few people that support gun control, but read the Second Amendment as saying that any gun control is unconstitutional.
It'll be interesting to see if this topic gets off-topic as so many others have. Mention certain hot button issues in passing and off we go! (Gun control, 2000 Pres. election, abortion, to name a few.)
But since the topic here is campaign finance reform, let's focus on that. BoSoxRudy implies that reversing the Buckley decision would somehow keep people from donating to organizations they support. I don't get that. To me, the issue is whether wealthier groups or individuals should have proportionately more access than poor folks to elected officials through making huge donations to their campaigns (either through hard money or soft money).
We should have public financing of campaigns. I can't imagine that anyone would think that a candidate's donors should pay his/her salary once he/she is elected, but how is that so different from paying for his/her election? Why not have public financing for the campaign to ensure a level playing field and avoid undue influence by the wealthiest special interest groups?
But since the topic here is campaign finance reform, let's focus on that. BoSoxRudy implies that reversing the Buckley decision would somehow keep people from donating to organizations they support. I don't get that. To me, the issue is whether wealthier groups or individuals should have proportionately more access than poor folks to elected officials through making huge donations to their campaigns (either through hard money or soft money).
We should have public financing of campaigns. I can't imagine that anyone would think that a candidate's donors should pay his/her salary once he/she is elected, but how is that so different from paying for his/her election? Why not have public financing for the campaign to ensure a level playing field and avoid undue influence by the wealthiest special interest groups?
Did you ever think that the most powerful (and coincidentally sometimes, wealthiest) special interest groups have that status because of the strength of their values/beliefs? I don't want to derail this topic with the NRA thing, but it makes for a good example. Are NRA members particularly wealthy? No. So why does the NRA as a political group have so much power and money? Because that bumper sticker you see, "You can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold dead hand", is no joke - it's like a blood oath for most NRA folks. The NRA's money and power are a by-product of its membership's strength of conviction.
As for the "not everybody has money" argument, I'm sorry, but that's so damn hypocritical. Oh, I can just hear the SCREECHES of protect if citizens' rights were arbitrarily limited or denied based on any other criteria, but for some reason, it's OK to do it to the wealthy. Why not limit the 1st Amendment rights of the educated? After all, a well-educated person can write cogently argued emails to their elected politicians and eloquent letters to the editors of major newspapers. That gives them power that the poorly-educated and illiterate do not have. So deny the educated their freedom of speech! I used to work with a guy who was the most charismatic person I've ever known. He was personable, handsome as hell, and most impressive, he could light up and electrify a room like nobody I've ever seen. I'm rather average-looking and lacking in charisma. Do I have the right to deny this guy's freedom of speech because he has something that I don't? The list of possibilities here is endless.
If you denied those with money the freedom of speech, you'd have to level the playing field in every other respect as well. And you'd end up with a situation where everybody is denied their 1st Amendment rights. Conversely, you can allow everyone freedom of speech, in the context of whatever real or perceived injustices. It may not be a perfect situation, but I'd much prefer the latter.
[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: BoSoxRudy ]
As for the "not everybody has money" argument, I'm sorry, but that's so damn hypocritical. Oh, I can just hear the SCREECHES of protect if citizens' rights were arbitrarily limited or denied based on any other criteria, but for some reason, it's OK to do it to the wealthy. Why not limit the 1st Amendment rights of the educated? After all, a well-educated person can write cogently argued emails to their elected politicians and eloquent letters to the editors of major newspapers. That gives them power that the poorly-educated and illiterate do not have. So deny the educated their freedom of speech! I used to work with a guy who was the most charismatic person I've ever known. He was personable, handsome as hell, and most impressive, he could light up and electrify a room like nobody I've ever seen. I'm rather average-looking and lacking in charisma. Do I have the right to deny this guy's freedom of speech because he has something that I don't? The list of possibilities here is endless.
If you denied those with money the freedom of speech, you'd have to level the playing field in every other respect as well. And you'd end up with a situation where everybody is denied their 1st Amendment rights. Conversely, you can allow everyone freedom of speech, in the context of whatever real or perceived injustices. It may not be a perfect situation, but I'd much prefer the latter.
[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: BoSoxRudy ]
[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
Did you ever think that the most powerful (and coincidentally sometimes, wealthiest) special interest groups have that status because of the strength of their values/beliefs?
So, the reason that gay sex is a felony in Virginia is that the people who oppose it have stronger values than I do. Thanks for clearing that up, BSR.
Did you ever think that the most powerful (and coincidentally sometimes, wealthiest) special interest groups have that status because of the strength of their values/beliefs?
So, the reason that gay sex is a felony in Virginia is that the people who oppose it have stronger values than I do. Thanks for clearing that up, BSR.
I have the solution! Just ban all f***ing politcal TV ads. Just rid society if all that bullsh**t! Its all mere propoganda anyway. Just be done with the lot of it!
We've banned cigarettes and liquor from the airwaves. Is that democratic? F**k no! We don't even live in a democratic society. So ban jack ass politicians from TV with one exception... debates.
And let them debate a dozen times. And throw in commericals so the networks can make their money.
If they are really interested in campaign finance reform, they'd create rules where scumbag corporations like Enron couldn't whisper sweet love songs in Dubya's ear after he's taken office. Why don't they just focus on that type of crap?
We've banned cigarettes and liquor from the airwaves. Is that democratic? F**k no! We don't even live in a democratic society. So ban jack ass politicians from TV with one exception... debates.
And let them debate a dozen times. And throw in commericals so the networks can make their money.
If they are really interested in campaign finance reform, they'd create rules where scumbag corporations like Enron couldn't whisper sweet love songs in Dubya's ear after he's taken office. Why don't they just focus on that type of crap?
[quote]Originally posted by twin58:
So, the reason that gay sex is a felony in Virginia is that the people who oppose it have stronger values than I do. Thanks for clearing that up, BSR.
Was that sarcasm really necessary? I don't appreciate it. When I said "strength of values/beliefs", of course I didn't mean that their values are better. I thought I made myself clear later (but am allowing for the possibility that I didn't) in that paragraph when I referred to NRA and "strength of conviction." While a lot of people in this country are in favor of gun control, very few are willing to die for the cause whereas millions in the NRA would sooner die than lose their 2nd Amendment rights.
When did gay sex become a felony in Virginia? In the context of this thread, I get the impression from your post that it's a recent development. I'm not familiar with Virginia law or history, so I'm just asking here (respectfully and without sarcasm, please note).
One thing that sucks about a free society is that ass****s and bigots are entitled to the very same freedoms you are. But guess what? You can't arbitrarily strip ass****s and bigots of their 1st Amendment rights without jeopardizing your own in the process. Your political opponents will often get their way, much to your chagrin. Let's not forget how much the radical right HATED Clinton because he kept them at bay for eight years. Christians and conservatives are completely bent that Colin Powell spoke out in favor of condoms. Sometimes the good guys win; sometimes the ass****s and bigots win. It's the price we pay for a free society.
As for the notion of banning all political ads, I don't know if AU Tiger is serious here, or if it's just wishful thinking. If it's just wishful thinking, then to be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing them go either. Political ads are always ridiculously simplistic, and contribute little if anything to political discourse in this country. Not to mention I find them horribly annoying.
But if your suggestion was serious, well, sorry pal, can't happen. Yes, tobacco and hard alcohol ads were banned from television, but I thought that was (begrudgingly) voluntary. The "vice" industries basically consented to the ban in response to threats of much stricter federal regulation. "Play nice and stay away from TV, or we're going to make life a living hell for you." Hey, every time I see a political candidate patting some kid on the head while the cheesy BS voiceover drones on in the background, I just about vomit into my mouth. But banning the ads? That goes under "I'll fight to the death your right to say it."
So, the reason that gay sex is a felony in Virginia is that the people who oppose it have stronger values than I do. Thanks for clearing that up, BSR.
Was that sarcasm really necessary? I don't appreciate it. When I said "strength of values/beliefs", of course I didn't mean that their values are better. I thought I made myself clear later (but am allowing for the possibility that I didn't) in that paragraph when I referred to NRA and "strength of conviction." While a lot of people in this country are in favor of gun control, very few are willing to die for the cause whereas millions in the NRA would sooner die than lose their 2nd Amendment rights.
When did gay sex become a felony in Virginia? In the context of this thread, I get the impression from your post that it's a recent development. I'm not familiar with Virginia law or history, so I'm just asking here (respectfully and without sarcasm, please note).
One thing that sucks about a free society is that ass****s and bigots are entitled to the very same freedoms you are. But guess what? You can't arbitrarily strip ass****s and bigots of their 1st Amendment rights without jeopardizing your own in the process. Your political opponents will often get their way, much to your chagrin. Let's not forget how much the radical right HATED Clinton because he kept them at bay for eight years. Christians and conservatives are completely bent that Colin Powell spoke out in favor of condoms. Sometimes the good guys win; sometimes the ass****s and bigots win. It's the price we pay for a free society.
As for the notion of banning all political ads, I don't know if AU Tiger is serious here, or if it's just wishful thinking. If it's just wishful thinking, then to be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing them go either. Political ads are always ridiculously simplistic, and contribute little if anything to political discourse in this country. Not to mention I find them horribly annoying.
But if your suggestion was serious, well, sorry pal, can't happen. Yes, tobacco and hard alcohol ads were banned from television, but I thought that was (begrudgingly) voluntary. The "vice" industries basically consented to the ban in response to threats of much stricter federal regulation. "Play nice and stay away from TV, or we're going to make life a living hell for you." Hey, every time I see a political candidate patting some kid on the head while the cheesy BS voiceover drones on in the background, I just about vomit into my mouth. But banning the ads? That goes under "I'll fight to the death your right to say it."
[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
When did gay sex become a felony in Virginia? In the context of this thread, I get the impression from your post that it's a recent development.
1607, I'd guess.
[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: twin58 ]
When did gay sex become a felony in Virginia? In the context of this thread, I get the impression from your post that it's a recent development.
1607, I'd guess.
[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: twin58 ]
[quote]How hypocritical can liberals be? Just a few months ago, you're all bitching and whining about Ashcroft, the Justice Department, and Congress tightening restrictions on detainment, wire tapping, etc.
Hey UMP25.....don't bash liberals here. I didn't see liberals break into prayer when Rep. Kolbe spoke at the RNC. It been liberals that began the legislative process to make sure (in a number of states) that we don't lose our jobs, housing etc. simply for being gay.
It is not liberals that tie homosexuality to pedophilia, in order to diminish the standing of responsible gay people, as to allow the ensuing innuendo to force the removal of an individual from their job.
You need to end your hypocracy.
Hey UMP25.....don't bash liberals here. I didn't see liberals break into prayer when Rep. Kolbe spoke at the RNC. It been liberals that began the legislative process to make sure (in a number of states) that we don't lose our jobs, housing etc. simply for being gay.
It is not liberals that tie homosexuality to pedophilia, in order to diminish the standing of responsible gay people, as to allow the ensuing innuendo to force the removal of an individual from their job.
You need to end your hypocracy.
I'd like to see a law passed that states that no paid announcers or actors can be used in radio ads or doing voiceovers in TV ads--particularly the sleazy attack ads, such as the ones where they show (sometimes made up) newspaper headlines and the worst possible photo of the person they're attacking.
My rule would be that anything said in a campaign ad has to be spoken by the candidate him- or herself. And if it's a TV ad, the candidate has to be seen on-camera speaking the words.
I think candidates would think twice before saying some of the things their hatchet men and women say for them.
My rule would be that anything said in a campaign ad has to be spoken by the candidate him- or herself. And if it's a TV ad, the candidate has to be seen on-camera speaking the words.
I think candidates would think twice before saying some of the things their hatchet men and women say for them.
[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
gentlemen, can we forget about the bashing, whether liberal or conservative? I'd hate to see this topic derailed because it's one that I feel very strongly about.
I'm still waiting to hear a response from those who argued that donating money to political organizations doesn't qualify as speech. Oh my God! Talk to some of the well-funded political groups, e.g., the NRA, AARP, or the Sierra Club, about just how important money is to their mission and message. When I renewed my $35 membership to the NRA, I spoke loud and clear: I believe in the 2nd Amendment, and our 2nd Amendment rights must be protected. How is that not political speech?
Then there was the argument that not everyone has money, so money has to be removed from the equation. A couple of problems with that ... first, these well-funded organizations don't necessarily have wealthy members. Most NRA members are far from wealthy (including me! that $35 was a real sacrifice); same goes for AARP members, and I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.
Second, if you remove money from the equation, then you have to start removing all sorts of other things to create this mystical "perfectly level playing field" -- e.g., education, Internet access -- because not everyone has those things either. If you take that argument to an extreme, you could argue that people who wish to participate in the American political process and exercise their 1st Amendment right to free speech shouldn't be able to use/speak/write English, because not everyone in this country has mastery of the English language.
There are still actions we could take to improve the situation, while retaining the "money is speech" principle. I love Joe in Philly's idea. You couldn't make it law, but you could make it voluntary and see what happens when the other side refuses to play.
One idea being tossed around is that people and corporations can donate an unlimited amount to any candidate or party, but all donations must be made "blind" - in other words, the donations are funneled through a central clearing house, and the candidate/party never finds out who gave what (just don't hire Anderson Accounting for the job). I don't know if you could get away with making this law either, but again, make it voluntary and woe betide the candidate/group who refuses to play.
I'm still waiting to hear a response from those who argued that donating money to political organizations doesn't qualify as speech. Oh my God! Talk to some of the well-funded political groups, e.g., the NRA, AARP, or the Sierra Club, about just how important money is to their mission and message. When I renewed my $35 membership to the NRA, I spoke loud and clear: I believe in the 2nd Amendment, and our 2nd Amendment rights must be protected. How is that not political speech?
Then there was the argument that not everyone has money, so money has to be removed from the equation. A couple of problems with that ... first, these well-funded organizations don't necessarily have wealthy members. Most NRA members are far from wealthy (including me! that $35 was a real sacrifice); same goes for AARP members, and I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.
Second, if you remove money from the equation, then you have to start removing all sorts of other things to create this mystical "perfectly level playing field" -- e.g., education, Internet access -- because not everyone has those things either. If you take that argument to an extreme, you could argue that people who wish to participate in the American political process and exercise their 1st Amendment right to free speech shouldn't be able to use/speak/write English, because not everyone in this country has mastery of the English language.
There are still actions we could take to improve the situation, while retaining the "money is speech" principle. I love Joe in Philly's idea. You couldn't make it law, but you could make it voluntary and see what happens when the other side refuses to play.
One idea being tossed around is that people and corporations can donate an unlimited amount to any candidate or party, but all donations must be made "blind" - in other words, the donations are funneled through a central clearing house, and the candidate/party never finds out who gave what (just don't hire Anderson Accounting for the job). I don't know if you could get away with making this law either, but again, make it voluntary and woe betide the candidate/group who refuses to play.
[quote]This bill, if enacted, would prevent me from giving my $25 to the NRA, or Grandma to give her $50 to the AARP--two of the most influential organizations in D.C.--for such soft money contributions would be banned outright. Yet the media would be left untouched and unaffected.
You could not run an ad on TV, radio, or newspaper 60 days prior to an election, or 30 days prior to a Primary, but guess what? The media can say whatever they want, do whatever they want, with no penalty.
I'm not an expert but I have seen some of the debate about this bill and I'm not sure if this is entirely correct. I think the bill prohibits the use of treasury money as campaign contributions or for issue ads during the time frame. Nothing at all stops to NRA or AARP from raising money separate from its dues to make contributions. This is really targeted -- not at lobbying groups -- but corporations that were tired of continuously getting asked for money.
Nothing in the bill adds any more restrictions to my or your ability to make a campaign contribution directly.
You could not run an ad on TV, radio, or newspaper 60 days prior to an election, or 30 days prior to a Primary, but guess what? The media can say whatever they want, do whatever they want, with no penalty.
I'm not an expert but I have seen some of the debate about this bill and I'm not sure if this is entirely correct. I think the bill prohibits the use of treasury money as campaign contributions or for issue ads during the time frame. Nothing at all stops to NRA or AARP from raising money separate from its dues to make contributions. This is really targeted -- not at lobbying groups -- but corporations that were tired of continuously getting asked for money.
Nothing in the bill adds any more restrictions to my or your ability to make a campaign contribution directly.
[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
Sorry, but the title "Incumbent Protection Act" has already been claimed by California's Proposition 45 on our March 5, 2002 ballot. This totally selfish initiative, which would effectively defeat term limits, is sponsored by the Pelosi-Burton-Brown-Migden machine and seeks to safeguard their interests in SFrancisco. Just goes to show that in all our wonderful diversity even we in the "gay community" aren't immune to the corrupting influences of power.
If this bill becomes law, surely there will be appeals to the US Supreme Court which, our own personal opinions notwithstanding, is the only true arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional.
Ump and others who seem well-versed in this topic: What alternatives, if any, to this bill would you offer? Certainly money has corrupted politics and politicians throughout our history although, as is said, it is power that corrupts (money just being a form of power, if I may quote a "Bicentennial Minute" done by Milicent Fenwick in 1976). Is there really anything we can do and not violate the First Amendment?
And as a side-bar, with respect to the issue of term limits: while I understand the reason why someone would want them, I personally feel they infringe on my right to vote for whomever I want. We get the government we deserve. If we don't want someone in office, then we should do our damndest to see that she or he is not elected. But if we like someone (the 22nd Amendment being the only exception) then I feel we should be able to elect her or him as often as we want.
[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: SteveS ]
Ump and others who seem well-versed in this topic: What alternatives, if any, to this bill would you offer? Certainly money has corrupted politics and politicians throughout our history although, as is said, it is power that corrupts (money just being a form of power, if I may quote a "Bicentennial Minute" done by Milicent Fenwick in 1976). Is there really anything we can do and not violate the First Amendment?
And as a side-bar, with respect to the issue of term limits: while I understand the reason why someone would want them, I personally feel they infringe on my right to vote for whomever I want. We get the government we deserve. If we don't want someone in office, then we should do our damndest to see that she or he is not elected. But if we like someone (the 22nd Amendment being the only exception) then I feel we should be able to elect her or him as often as we want.
[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: SteveS ]
Well, I rarely even go into these non-sports topics, to avoid all the animosity aroused.
Congress here is doing what they do best - a nice show for their own constituencies, brought to a head by the Enron scandal, to show the voters they are "doing something" - whatever passes will be a Congressional Punt - punting the issue to the Supreme Court to work out the details and the legalities.
I have a distaste for these threads - I seriously doubt anyone is going to change anyone else's mind on the issue.
Congress here is doing what they do best - a nice show for their own constituencies, brought to a head by the Enron scandal, to show the voters they are "doing something" - whatever passes will be a Congressional Punt - punting the issue to the Supreme Court to work out the details and the legalities.
I have a distaste for these threads - I seriously doubt anyone is going to change anyone else's mind on the issue.
[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
Ump, we essentially agree, but the proponents of this version of term limit amendment, the Pelosi-Burton-Brown-Migden machine, are nowhere in the same league as HHyde and RGiuliani. The former are hustling political opportunists who, in the case of Pelosi and Migden, came cross country to fill a vacuum in the SF political machine that advocates permissive government and essentially serves as the nation's convicts' and prisoners' lobby. The latter ARE true leaders and statemen and I admire both of them intensely. That's why, here and now in CA, Prop 45 is a bad idea and should be defeated.
[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
...a pox on the houses of Republicans everywhere,...
Finally, I am in agreement with Ump25 on an issue.
...a pox on the houses of Republicans everywhere,...
Finally, I am in agreement with Ump25 on an issue.
[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
Perhaps your soul may some day yet be saved, twin.
Not according to Fred Phelps.
I really should have added a smiley face, like this :-).
Perhaps your soul may some day yet be saved, twin.
Not according to Fred Phelps.
I really should have added a smiley face, like this :-).
Ump25 wrote:
[quote] the biggest example of term limit folly can be summed up in two words:
Rudy Giuliani.
I am opposed in principle to term limits, but the exile of that authoritarian bully has been the biggest benefit, next to avoiding a third term for that amiable dunce Reagan.
By approving limits, voters say "We're too moronic to decide whether a public servant is any good or not." The sad truth is that's generally true.
[quote] the biggest example of term limit folly can be summed up in two words:
Rudy Giuliani.
I am opposed in principle to term limits, but the exile of that authoritarian bully has been the biggest benefit, next to avoiding a third term for that amiable dunce Reagan.
By approving limits, voters say "We're too moronic to decide whether a public servant is any good or not." The sad truth is that's generally true.
[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
By approving limits, voters say "We're too moronic to decide whether a public servant is any good or not." The sad truth is that's generally true.
There's a great quote about term limits ... that term limits are voters' way of saying, "Stop us before we vote again!"
That said, I'm also opposed to term limits. Proponents of term limits argue that a lot of idiot incompetent incumbents re-elected, contrary to all sense and reason, because of the power of incumbency. Yeah, God forbid we actually have to bear any consequences for the decisions we make. The beauty of a free society is that we're free to make choices, even if those choices turn out to be shockingly stupid sometimes.
By approving limits, voters say "We're too moronic to decide whether a public servant is any good or not." The sad truth is that's generally true.
There's a great quote about term limits ... that term limits are voters' way of saying, "Stop us before we vote again!"
That said, I'm also opposed to term limits. Proponents of term limits argue that a lot of idiot incompetent incumbents re-elected, contrary to all sense and reason, because of the power of incumbency. Yeah, God forbid we actually have to bear any consequences for the decisions we make. The beauty of a free society is that we're free to make choices, even if those choices turn out to be shockingly stupid sometimes.
Back to campaign finance reform: This law is soooo effective.
Democrats Plan to Circumvent Campaign Finance Reform
Democrats Plan to Circumvent Campaign Finance Reform
Here's an article from the _Washington Post_. Cynics of all political persuasions will be able to find a quote that justifies their beliefs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2002Feb14.html
>>
....
Terence R. McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said that in 2001, the DNC boosted direct-mail revenue to $25 million -- that compared with $14 million in 1997, the previous post-presidential election year. He said he hopes to raise $100 million in 2004.
McAuliffe plans to use the nine-month "window" before the soft-money ban would take effect to raise and spend roughly $30 million in soft money for a new, high-tech headquarters, fully equipped with computerized lists, a dedicated cable line and other electronic mechanisms to reach donor bases that would remain legal.
The Democrats' decision to delay the effective date until Nov. 6, the day after the election, will, according to National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), result in a short-term fundraising "binge." The Democrats "won't be drinking alone," he said. "We'll take whatever comes -- hard money, soft money, building money, Indian gaming money."
The party committees likely to have the toughest time adjusting to the new rules are the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, each highly dependent on soft money. The DCCC reported that in 2001, it raised $33.8 million, $16.4 million in hard money and $17.4 million in soft money. The DSCC raised $37 million, of which $22.8 million was soft money.
Their GOP counterparts, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee, are less dependent on soft money. The NRSC raised $53 million, of which $24 million was soft money, while the NRCC pulled in $68.6 million, of which $28.9 million was soft.
One possibly unanticipated consequence of the new legislation is that House and Senate challengers to incumbents may have even more trouble staying competitive in fundraising. Parties rely heavily on soft money to finance challengers, because most interest groups prefer to give to incumbents.
<<
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2002Feb14.html
>>
....
Terence R. McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said that in 2001, the DNC boosted direct-mail revenue to $25 million -- that compared with $14 million in 1997, the previous post-presidential election year. He said he hopes to raise $100 million in 2004.
McAuliffe plans to use the nine-month "window" before the soft-money ban would take effect to raise and spend roughly $30 million in soft money for a new, high-tech headquarters, fully equipped with computerized lists, a dedicated cable line and other electronic mechanisms to reach donor bases that would remain legal.
The Democrats' decision to delay the effective date until Nov. 6, the day after the election, will, according to National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), result in a short-term fundraising "binge." The Democrats "won't be drinking alone," he said. "We'll take whatever comes -- hard money, soft money, building money, Indian gaming money."
The party committees likely to have the toughest time adjusting to the new rules are the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, each highly dependent on soft money. The DCCC reported that in 2001, it raised $33.8 million, $16.4 million in hard money and $17.4 million in soft money. The DSCC raised $37 million, of which $22.8 million was soft money.
Their GOP counterparts, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee, are less dependent on soft money. The NRSC raised $53 million, of which $24 million was soft money, while the NRCC pulled in $68.6 million, of which $28.9 million was soft.
One possibly unanticipated consequence of the new legislation is that House and Senate challengers to incumbents may have even more trouble staying competitive in fundraising. Parties rely heavily on soft money to finance challengers, because most interest groups prefer to give to incumbents.
<<
[quote]Originally posted by twin58:
One possibly unanticipated consequence of the new legislation is that House and Senate challengers to incumbents may have even more trouble staying competitive in fundraising. Parties rely heavily on soft money to finance challengers, because most interest groups prefer to give to incumbents.
<<
Unanticipated consequence? Opponents of CFR have been saying for eons that the proposal benefits incumbents. Duh. Is there any Outsports reader who believes that politicians will pass a law making it more difficult for them to win reelection? Anyone? If so, I have some ocean-front property, as George Strait would say.
One possibly unanticipated consequence of the new legislation is that House and Senate challengers to incumbents may have even more trouble staying competitive in fundraising. Parties rely heavily on soft money to finance challengers, because most interest groups prefer to give to incumbents.
<<
Unanticipated consequence? Opponents of CFR have been saying for eons that the proposal benefits incumbents. Duh. Is there any Outsports reader who believes that politicians will pass a law making it more difficult for them to win reelection? Anyone? If so, I have some ocean-front property, as George Strait would say.
And the truth is many CFR want the bill to be flawed and ineffective, so they can swoop down in a few years and place even more regulations on political speech. After all, the reforms now being imposed are "solutions" to "problems" created by post-Watergate "reforms" that were supposed to create some sort of political heaven- on-earth. This dynamic is explored by George Will in his column:
George Will on CFR
George Will on CFR
George Will: foaming cluck who doesn't even understand baseball. (And an accessory to theft, if you recall Debategate.)
Of course the Democrats don't want REAL reform either -- the question is, do the people have the consciousness to force the issue? We're not at that level of awareness yet, and I doubt we'll get there. In the meantime, the sum of the current legislation is an improvement over the previous status quo.
Probably. So far. Until the conservative courts get their hands on it.
Of course the Democrats don't want REAL reform either -- the question is, do the people have the consciousness to force the issue? We're not at that level of awareness yet, and I doubt we'll get there. In the meantime, the sum of the current legislation is an improvement over the previous status quo.
Probably. So far. Until the conservative courts get their hands on it.
Well, I have no idea what a foaming cluck is. I assume cluck has something to do with poultry, but I've never seen chickens, hens, etc. foam. Do you mean foam at the mouth? George Will's a rabid chicken? I don't find chickens threatening. Or is this one of those "Nuck Fewt" things. Will's a cloaming f**k? No that doesn't make sense either. Oh well, at any rate . . .
. . . though I suspect you define "conservative" as anything or anyone to the right of Marx, not everyone is so sure that the courts will save us from this (but hey, righties don't like our courts, lefties don't like our courts, they're probably doing something right):
National Foaming Cluck Review
. . . though I suspect you define "conservative" as anything or anyone to the right of Marx, not everyone is so sure that the courts will save us from this (but hey, righties don't like our courts, lefties don't like our courts, they're probably doing something right):
National Foaming Cluck Review
Sorry about the unexplained use of "cluck" as an epithet (with the likes of George Will, I like to go beyond the range of "pompous twit" and "self-righteous prig")... I've been fond of this euphemism since Murray Slaughter was whispering an instant apology for Georgette into Ted Baxter's ear on the MTM Show, culminating with Ted parroting "You'll never regret having married such a cluck."
Geo Will = T Baxter + credibility
Getting back to the *actual* rape of the Bill of Rights, the PATRIOT Act can force your librarian or bookseller to surrender your reading list without informing you:
The FBI Is Eyeing What You Read (Nat Hentoff)
And that odious bill defines 'terrorist' broadly enough to fit MLK Jr, I'd wager.
Geo Will = T Baxter + credibility
Getting back to the *actual* rape of the Bill of Rights, the PATRIOT Act can force your librarian or bookseller to surrender your reading list without informing you:
The FBI Is Eyeing What You Read (Nat Hentoff)
And that odious bill defines 'terrorist' broadly enough to fit MLK Jr, I'd wager.
[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
And that odious bill defines 'terrorist' broadly enough to fit MLK Jr, I'd wager.
It's broad enough to cover dead people? That is comprehensive.
So buy books with cash, if it freaks you out so much. Big deal.
And that odious bill defines 'terrorist' broadly enough to fit MLK Jr, I'd wager.
It's broad enough to cover dead people? That is comprehensive.
So buy books with cash, if it freaks you out so much. Big deal.
I meant it would've applied to King if such a law had been around in the Eisenhower era, as I'm sure you understood, Shecky Greene.
So pay a leather daddy to spank you if you're masochistic enough to be a gay Republican. Big deal.
So pay a leather daddy to spank you if you're masochistic enough to be a gay Republican. Big deal.
[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
So pay a leather daddy to spank you if you're masochistic enough to be a gay Republican. Big deal.
That's not an either/or proposition. You can get spanked and be a gay Republican. And both can be rather enjoyable, from what I've been told (I'm not a registered Republican, so I wouldn't have any firsthand experience with that.)
But it's nice to see that in some cases - the leather daddy industry, at least - you respect free markets and capitalism. That's progress, I suppose.
So pay a leather daddy to spank you if you're masochistic enough to be a gay Republican. Big deal.
That's not an either/or proposition. You can get spanked and be a gay Republican. And both can be rather enjoyable, from what I've been told (I'm not a registered Republican, so I wouldn't have any firsthand experience with that.)
But it's nice to see that in some cases - the leather daddy industry, at least - you respect free markets and capitalism. That's progress, I suppose.
Yes, Roy Cohn did both.
Mom n' pop capitalism has its good points. Or pop n' pop.
Mom n' pop capitalism has its good points. Or pop n' pop.
[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
Yes, Roy Cohn did both.
It's not often one is compared to Shecky Greene and Roy Cohn in the same day. Will this this sort of negative campaigning be legal under Campaign Finance Reform (since that is the topic of this whatever-you-call-it)?
Yes, Roy Cohn did both.
It's not often one is compared to Shecky Greene and Roy Cohn in the same day. Will this this sort of negative campaigning be legal under Campaign Finance Reform (since that is the topic of this whatever-you-call-it)?
[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
Originally posted by Bill W:
<<So pay a leather daddy to spank you if you're masochistic enough to be a gay Republican. Big deal.>>
Actually, the demographics here in SF are that a significant portion of leather guys, both dads and lads, are registered GOPers! It was as big a surprise to me as I'm sure it is here. But, don't look for the gay press to provide any facts on gay GOPers - it's so much easier just to rant!
(That's NOT a blast at Outsports, but their business partners at PlanetOut could sure learn a thing or two from it!)
<<So pay a leather daddy to spank you if you're masochistic enough to be a gay Republican. Big deal.>>
Actually, the demographics here in SF are that a significant portion of leather guys, both dads and lads, are registered GOPers! It was as big a surprise to me as I'm sure it is here. But, don't look for the gay press to provide any facts on gay GOPers - it's so much easier just to rant!
(That's NOT a blast at Outsports, but their business partners at PlanetOut could sure learn a thing or two from it!)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.