Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

I don´t particuarly care for the McCain-Feingold bill. At its heart is a restriction on the speech that in my opinion should be most protected. We as a society seem willing to tolerate an entertainment industry that glorifies violence, promiscuity, and drug abuse, but I am limited in the amount of money I can give to the political party or candidate of my choice. Good ideaq, maybe next we can give a grant to that guy who discovered cold fussion.

Instead of what we currently have, I say we should do the following. The primaries should be scrapped and in their place an endorsement election should be held. Every candidate who receives more than 10% of that vote should automatically be granted federal funds fixed to the level of the election, less for representatives, more for senators, most for presidential candidates. These federal funds should be all that is allowed. All that McCain-Feingold does is block grassroots groups to the benefit of incumbents and corporations.

“It is the rare individual who can tell you what Congress is doing on any one given issue and thus we rely upon interest groups to do so.”
You could watch congress in session on CSPAN or write your representative or go to:
www.aauw.org/takeaction/votingrecord.cfm

Andre,

Yes you could do that. But I suggest when you look at CSPAN and CSPAN-2 you are getting only a tiny fraction of what is going on. Not every hearing, nor every vote, nor every mark-up session in committee is televised. There is simply no way to do it for the average person. Most of the real legislative work takes place in those locales and except for the interest groups, there is no regular on teh ground intelligence to be had about Congressional activity.

Everyone with half a brain knows that money is not “free speech”…speech is free speech.

Lobbying is not campaign finance.

Sorry Matt, you must quit lying to yourself. Lobbying is campaign finance plus more. Lobbying gets a couple bills passed on your behalf. I do like your idea about the primaries, though. The primary system needs a serious evaluation.

Also I agree with Lynne that Money != Speech. There should be some regulation of money contributed to campaigns. The reason I say this is that any American has a voice, but not all Americans have the wealth often needed to give that voice some bite. To equate money and speech means giving a miniscule percentage of the population a much harder bite than the rest of the country. This is slowly starting to change with the rise of the Netroots movement (when I say Netroots I’m referring to how both sides are using the Internet, not just the ‘libs’). McCain-Feingold has its flaws but its better than unrestrained campaign contributions.

My Name Is Roger:

ANDRE M. HERNANDEZ…………………………..

Thanks for the information about { take action }

ROGER a Conservative Christian Rupublican

“Everyone with half a brain knows that money is not “free speech‎…speech is free speech.”

????

And how does one’s free speech get to the public without money for television and newspaper ads, or computers for emailings?

Saying money has nothing to do with free speech is like saying voting booths have nothing to do with the right to vote. Let’s say the Democrats are correct that in Ohio in 2004, black neighborhoods were allocated fewer voting booths per capita than white neighborhoods. Would it make any sense to say that blacks in those underserved neighborhoods still had the “right” to vote without the physical means to do so?

You cannot separate money from free speech, and the horror of McCain-Feingold is precisely that it tilts the playing field for the wealthy. There is no limitation on a multi-millionaire spending his own money on ads for a particular candidate as long the ads are not “coordinated” with the candidate. But PACs and incorporated organizations like the NRA or ACLU, which allow poor people to pool resources to achieve a political result, are limited to making ads paid only with regulated “hard money.”

On one hand everyone complains about politicians who have lost touch with their constituents, bowing to pressure from special interests and corporations. Then, you say the special interests and corporations shouldn’t be restricted from political advertising. This has created the system we suffer through today, where politicians have no choice but to bow to the money if they want to have any hope of being re-elected.

How do we judge campaigns in the early stages? By how much money they’ve raised. Its obvious that, watchblog commenters aside, most of America is swayed by tv ads. This costs money, and creates a direct correlation between money and influence. This is wrong. Being wealthier does not entitle you to more free speech than someone who is poor. Further, it has created a political climate where brevity is king, and catch-phrases more powerful than ideas. Regardless of how you felt about John Kerry, the fact that his ideas were nuanced and couldn’t be summed up in a 30 second spot hurt him.

There are many reasons the political landscape has evolved the way it has, not the least of which being the apathy of the average American when it comes to politics. Many treat it like a sporting event, always routing on their team. Most don’t even pay attention at all, and huge numbers don’t vote.

Our greatest right in this nation is the right to elect our government. It should not be treated lightly, by those fighting for votes or those casting them. If McCain-Feingold makes it more difficult to treat voters like consumers in a target market, then I’m all for it. And if it forces even one candidate to turn his back on big business and special interests and face up to his constituents, then it is a great achievement.

I’m with David S all the way. Well said!

You cannot separate money from free speech

We have to separate the two…otherwise no one without megabucks has a voice…which means they are being denied their free speech…equating money with free speech is what gives the corporations and the fat cat politicians control (kind of like fascism…the dictionary definition)of our government, leaving the people no voice.

This HAS to be changed…everyone needs to have an equal voice.

Wouldn’t it be restful to have

1) publicly funded elections only
2) campaigns shortened to only 2 months before each election
3) equal time for all candidates, no matter what
4) real debates, not canned questions

Lynne,

As to 1 and 4, it wouldn’t be restful at all. The cognitive dissonance that would ensue from listening to all the candidates in equal doses would be unbearable. Imagine walking through NYC with the ability to hear everything. You would never be able to listen to anything. Like or not, there has to be some reality check to keep people that don’t belong out of the process. Imagine the CA govenor’s race from a couple of year’s ago taken to this measure. The candidacy was littered with publicity seekers not candidates. Without some means to vet, they get what they want, and the voters are worse for it. Right now, like or not, money works as a vetting process. Could it be better, more fair, absolutely. But imagining the absolute other side is just lunacy.

As to 2, I think there are pro’s and con’s to that idea. On the plus side, we won’t be exposed to the electioneering for months on in. On the con side, anyone without name recognition before the election has no chance. Overall, I’m guessing the con’s outweigh the pro’s, but I could be convinced to think about it.

As to 4, that would be a real treat to see.

“Lobbying is not campaign finance.

Sorry Matt, you must quit lying to yourself. Lobbying is campaign finance plus more. “

Um, first, I am not lying to anyone. Second, lobbying is not campaign finance. One need only look at the law to see that there is a significant difference. Campaign finance and lobbying may be THOUGHT of as one and the same but they are not. Lobbying is about the business of legislating and the bills that work their way through the Congress and state legislatures. While there may be some ideas to make lobbying a little more transparent, it cannot be done away with. Campaign finance is about elections.

I realize that it may seem to be a subtle distinction, but that is because we have been brainwashed as to the two activities. Ask a lobbyist what he/she does and they will tell you they spend most of their time educating lawmakers and staff. Is it education with a spin—you bet, but the opposing sides are doing the same thing.

“Everyone with half a brain knows that money is not “free speech‎…speech is free speech.”

Lynne, this is naivete writ large. True, you can go down to the halls of congress or your local park and try to reach people about important issues, but good luck with that approach.

To move large numbers of people you need to use mass media and that costs money—lots of money. Do you have the resources to write, produce and buy air time for a radio or TV commercial? Do you have the ability to place 1/4 page ads in major daily newspapers? These entities are businesses and they use advertising to make money and they charge a lot of money for ad space. Corporations and interest groups can run ads in the next 60 days, but they must use PAC money, which is limited by its very nature, to do so and they often don’t have the money to do it.

Finally, and here is a good argument for you. The Supreme Court ruled in First National Bank v. Bellotti that a corporation or interest group may make unlimited contributions to campaigns on ballot questions and iniatives, but those same groups can’t spend money criticizing the government in a non-election related legislative process. It seems grossly unfair.

It is easy to say that money is not speech, but it is a proxy for speech and if you can’t spend money to broadcast your speech, what is the point of having free speech.

As the neocons whine and cry about the loss of 527’s to swift boat their way into office, the voters are very happy with the new rules.
For one simple reason.
In the last 60 days of an election, the only thing we get to hear and see is actual candidates, not trumped up issue ads.
The candidates, the people running for office, are the only ones we will have campaigning.
I actually like that idea, as most voters probably agree.

I think the line between news, editorials, business and entertainment has become blurred to the point where it can be difficult to control this issue. Is it only a political ad if you specifically mention a party or a candidate? Lets say Im pro abortion and I fund commercials for a chain of abortion clinics to run ads near election time advertising those clinics and the importance of “choice”. Is that business ad or is that a political ad? What if a left wing group finances and releases a Michael Moore film attacking the right a few weeks prior to the election, is this “entertainment” or a political ad? How about a church group running ads at election time about the importance of “family values”?
I see the problem of buying influence but I just don’t know if you can really control it.

Is the limit on donations applied to total donations or donations only to one candidate?

McCain-Feingold is in no way a new Sedition Act. The SA made it illegal to say anything against the government (mostly the Pres) or its policies. If we had a new one a lot of Democrats would be in jail really quick. Pray it doesn’t happen, unless you’re Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertsonites.

The issue here is what is speech. Is donating money speech or is only speech speech. At first glance money is not speech. But really when you donate you are paying someone to speak for you. That could be defined as speech. Thus to limit giving would be limiting speech, which is unconstitutional. Some want to limit speech of some people to allow the speech of others to be heard. Interesting and I sympathize with the position. Nevertheless we cannot limit free speech, by anyone. If that means others are not heard we should do something, like for people with an income below X dollars the government will match any donation the make. I dunno and this probably is nonsense and gibberish but thats the station my train of thought arrived at.

Matt,

Matt said:

“It is easy to say that money is not speech, but it is a proxy for speech and if you can’t spend money to broadcast your speech, what is the point of having free speech.”

So where is the freedom of the poor to speak? Why should the wealthy have more speech than you or I?

Want to reform politics? Spend the money on print media or broadcast radio or TV financed specifically for campaigning. A mass media c-span, let’s say. Set up a political network funded by media license fees. It’s a cost of being media in a free land. Provide access to all points of view. For free.

No one will watch, listen or read? Too bad.

Maybe your speech isn’t worth hearing then.

Matt, while I understand your wish to not limit speech, your suggestion just limits it to a different group than what Feingold does. Advocate real reform. Take the money out of it. Ban politics from commercial media. Let the ideas sell themselves.

Of course lobbiest have the right to lobby for what ever is their interest. I think the problem is in the way they lobby. Private audiences with the elected official, wine and dine, flying them around, writing bills for them etc. I say what we need is to establish a free speech zone for lobbiest only about 2 miles out of DC and outlaw the other stuff.

Perhaps another approach to limit the power of the corporations, and their lobbiest is to outlaw any lobbing in DC. Alllow the lobbiest to lobby our elected officials while they are in the local offices they have back in the state or district they represent. The lobbiest should also be required to live in the state or district the elected official represents.

Matt:

Who said anything about parks, etc.??? Each candidate gets equal air time…radio, podcast, TV…

And it’s not naiveté…it’s HOPE…never, ever take hope away from any person.

Lynne, this is naivete writ large. True, you can go down to the halls of congress or your local park and try to reach people about important issues, but good luck with that approach.

Rob:

Imagine all the ideas one could hear if all candidates had equal time…we’d have not only a better process, but we’d be able to surface ideas that the current election “system” doesn’t allow to bubble up.

Ya ever notice that it’s only the Right that gets in a tizzy about this and not the Left? Hmm, wonder why…..

L

Ah for the old days when we could buy elections. Those glory days when we could use the wealth we rightfully inherited to squelch the less fortunate.

I suppose if we can’t do this fairly and buy elections like we used to, we’ll just have to steal them as we did in Florida and Ohio.

1 Only fools still whine about the last (lost) election because their team lost. Suck it up, lefty, get a message that resonates with the public and get behind a candidate. I’ll be doing the same thing. May the best party win.
2. The left never gets in a Tizzy about denying people first amendment rights…take a look at their attempt to squellch the abc movie coming out tomorow.

Mcain-Feingold clearly favors the Uber-wealthy and disenfrancises the little guy as well as violating the constitution, and in time, will fall to the way side.
But may I ask, just what is wrong with corporations, groups, and individuals giving how much ever they want to a candidate for whatever reason so long their is clear evidence of that giving? Mind you, with the advent of the internet it becomes ridiculously easy to check on such things, particulary items of public record.
Why do I want this? Simple…I want to know who is trying to buy a candidate. Do you oppose the activies of the ACLU, Walmart or some noxious rich guy? Well, if you knew who gave what and to who in an easily discerned format, you could use that information to make your voting decision. But a lot of people REALLY don’t like that idea. And with good reason, because if you knew just how much money oil companies gave to John Kerry, well, that might just upset his enviromental allies…

Right now the law allows for the vast majority of major donors to be shielded from detection by combining the money in PAC- pools or directly funding one of the political parties (who in turn funnel the money again).

Matt, I am very conservative and fully support all things republican, but “Me thinks thou doth protest too much”.

The McCain-Feingold bill does not limit “free” speech. It limits “paid for speech”. Politicians are FREE to speak out on any subject. The bill is intended to restrict politicians from big money influence, which is reality is not “free”, but speech that is bought and paid for by those with different agendas, than perhaps most of our conservatives brethern.

You guys have got it easy with this one, given that it doesn’t seem to apply to the spoken views of ordinary Americans but rather to political lobbying (perhaps the Patriot Act fills in the gaps). Australians have been wrestling with this nonsense for a year after Prime Minister John Howard, one of George W.Bush’s good mates, decided to reintroduce sedition legislation in Parliament last year, effectively bringing back our hated Sedition Act, which had been defunct for half a century. It had always been a highly unpopular piece of legislation in Australia, given our convict background, large Irish population and the subsequent healthy disrespect for authority born of this.

I always thought the great thing about living in a Westminister-style democracy was that I could say virtually anything about anything as long I wasn’t hurting anyone. A misconception, obviously.

While the Prime Minister assures us it is neccessary given the changing state of the world post 9/11, the Bali bombings and the London bombings, and is an adjunct to Australia’s Anti-Terrorism Bill, it is still not popular.

I remain sceptical, as do most Australians fed up with a government purporting to uphold individual freedoms while playing pea-and-thimble tricks with taxes, workers’ rights, interest rates and individual liberties, so-called “core” and “non-core” election promises (truly, what a crock: they don’t tell you which is which while they’re pork-barrelling) and defence policy.

It was used unsuccessfully in an attempted prosecution of an islamic religious bookshop in the arab/muslim neighbourhoods of south-western Sydney - literature authorities felt was seditious. The Australian Federal Police decided there were no grounds for prosecution under the Act, so it seems like a toothless tiger in terms of dealing with those things for which we were told it was intended.

And I hope I haven’t been seditious here or I’ll get a bloody good smack on the wrist.

For as good a rundown as you’ll get and more details of the type of thing you can expect in the US if such a Bill is really passed, go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law