FEC Deciding Future of Political Blogs 558
* * Beatles-Beatles wrote to mention a bill entitled "The Online Freedom of Speech Act". The act, if passed, would make the Internet into a form of media subject to campaign finance laws. From the article: "Amid the explosion of political activity on the Internet, a federal court has instructed the six-member Federal Election Commission to draw up regulations that would extend the nation's campaign finance and spending limits to the Web. The FEC, in its initial rules, had exempted the Internet. Bloggers told the Committee on House Administration that regulations encompassing the Internet, even ones just on advertising, would have a chilling effect on free speech. The FEC vice chairman also questioned the necessity of any rules." Update: 09/23 15:33 GMT by Z : Edited to correct Congress != FEC.
And people wonder why you should be against (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Stop voting for people who have been in office longer than 10 years.
2) Stop voting for anyone with ties to big buisness.
3) Stop voting for anyone who inherited their wealth.
4) Stop voting for anyone with a law background.
5) Stop voting for anyone who has family closer than 2 generations who was in politics.
6) Stop voting for republicans.
7) Stop voting for democrats.
8) Start voting for independents who fit the above criteria and whose views and record you support.
The system is changeable, but unfortunately it'll have to get a lot worse before it penetrates the thick skulls of the complacent.
Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:5, Insightful)
As opposed to a for-profit corporation. They would never do something [slashdot.org] like that.
At least the Government is ultimately answerable the citizens. The corporation could care two shits about you unless you are a shareholder -- and even then they might still screw you (Enron).
Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporations won't stay in business if they don't provide a product they can sell and have people use. Your argument has no basis to it. If a corporation has no product and has no government granted monopoly (people are free to compete), they will never, EVER provide a product they cannot sell to stay in business.
I would never buy something that censored me. I am not forced to, where the government forces you at gunpoint at the threat of violence.
Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:2)
I would never buy something that censored me.
Really? How's that connection to the internet working out for you? You might not find yourself with a choice when you consider that a lot of companies have virtual monopolies on communications products (i.e: internet access) in certain areas. Read the article I linked to in my OP and this one [slashdot.org] for some perspective. Then think about your option if that was the only ISP in town.
where the government forces you at gunpoint at the threat of violence.
What has
Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:5, Insightful)
And do you realize, thanks to GOVERNMENT these companies have these monopolies? They grant the companies these monopolies, THAT is the reason you get limited access to them. But thankfully, I have a wide array of options to choose from. I could get FIOS, DSL, Cable, or even Dialup if I like, if there was a company "censoring" me. So your point is really moot. There are a wide variety of options to choose from. No company is censoring what I say. If one did, I would choose an alterative! Quite simple, I have no alternative to the government that is holding me.
What has our government forced you to do at gunpoint? And who do you think is really more accountable? The private company with a board of directors and shareholders or the Government that governs with the consent of the Governed who can vote their asses out of office the minute they see fit.
Please give me a list of companies that can force me to do anything? Microsoft? They can't force me to do anything, Walmart? I am not forced to go into their stores. Verizon who I have my cell phone with, they can't force me to do anything, I can use another provider if i wish. If you don't think the government forces you to do anything at gunpoint, I ask you, what happens when you don't pay your taxes? what happens if you don't follow silly traffic laws like buckling your seat belt? what happens if you jay-walk in an empty street?
You must have a strange view of society if you think the government doens't force you to do things, but corporations do.
Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:3, Interesting)
I could get FIOS,
I hate you ;)
If you don't think the government forces you to do anything at gunpoint, I ask you, what happens when you don't pay your taxes? what happens if you don't follow silly traffic laws like buckling your seat belt? what happens if you jay-walk in an empty street?
Let's see. If you don't pay your taxes the IRS might put a lien on any property you own and they might garnish part of your wages. If you don't follow "silly" laws like buckling your seat belt you might get a ticket
Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:5, Insightful)
The same thing goes with getting a speeding ticket. If I am cruising down a flat empty country highway and all of a sudden a police car shows up behind me, the only thing that keeps me from utterly ignoring him enforcing a stupid law for a wide open flat highway is the fact that if I just keep driving, he is going to use violence against me. The threat of violence is what makes people obediently pull over for speeding tickets, not some sense of civil obligation.
Now, the government's use of violence isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think it is good that if someone murders my mother, guys empowered to use violence by the government (police) go after the murder. That said, it is important to realize that a government solution to any problem is inherently revolves around the authorization of violence. That is where all power of the government stems from. Once you recognize that, you should pause before advocating any government solution. Ask yourself if the problem you are trying to solve really justifies the use of the threat of violence or use of violence upon your fellow humans. Ask yourself if you truly believe that coercion using the threat of violence is worthwhile in this instance.
I am not saying that we need to abolish taxes, the federal government, or anything of that nature. I am saying that before we merrily swing the government around like a sledge hammer trying to solve problems that we consider fully what it is you propose.
Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider yourself lucky to live in such a benevolent country. Up here in Canada, if you run afoul of Revenue Canada you can look forward to having police show up on your doorstep, and under threat of arms, confiscate anything and everything of value they can find, including property belonging to your spouse and children. We had a case not too long ago where medals that children had won at sc
Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:2)
A) the competition is no better
or
B) there is no competition
Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a short list of things that the government forces you to do at gunpoint:
Every single rule and regulation instituted by our government is solely backed by local, state, and federal police and agents. They enforce their will at the barrel of a gun. If you continually decline to do precisely what the local, state, and federal government has decreed, then you will eventually find yourself looking down the barrel of a gun. Count on it.
Get an original thought (Score:3, Insightful)
Or at least try to find a valid thought.
You (not me) are actually comparing laws against speeding to rape? Or perhaps you're comparing arrest to rape? I don't know which, but either way, your argument is inane.
Or perhaps you don't understand my point. Jail != barrel of a gun. Perhaps that is too logical for you, however. More than likely you're upset because your favorite pet argument has been shown to be lame.
Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:2)
Pfft, corporations have no such survival instinct. They will do whatever they can to make the most money as quickly as possible, even if it means cutting R&D to ensure they'll never have a competitive product again.
Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:3, Insightful)
Even Microsoft can be held accountable by a relatively small group of individuals working in their free time. There are telecom monopolies in every state, yet there are also small ISPs and you're still free to roll-your-own if you have bad service.
We've seen where rolling-your-own government gets you.
Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:3, Informative)
The corporation is answerable to its customers in the same way that gov is answerable to the voters. Customers vote with their wallets.
Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:5, Funny)
You are aware they have guns, right?
You are aware that you can vote, right?
Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:3, Insightful)
I love this argument - ``Well, you can vote''.
1) Not with Diebold you can't. Using Diebold, the vote decides you.
2) Consider the following model: You ``elect'' a congressman. He then goes off and starts sucking political dick and voting whichever way the wind is blowing. Someone like you says: "Well, you can vote". Ok. So we vote the idiot out (probably not, but suppose). Great. Notice how the stupid law the idiot passed is still on the books? Noti
Sidenote, but relevant (Score:3, Interesting)
Link to one story [cato.org]
Scary, huh?
Can vote isn't same as actually voting (Score:4, Insightful)
It passed by less than 130 votes. 12% turnout. Better yet, all the belly aching by people who DIDN'T VOTE! Two of us from work who were eligible to vote in the county did, the rest did not; about 7 others.
Having the right to vote is useless unless used.
Re:He who counts the votes... (Score:3, Insightful)
Diebold has more power than we do.
I guess I missed the headline about Diebold being mandated in every state and county in the Union then. I guess all those elections officials are probably on the Diebold payroll too. Damn and my next door neighbor seemed like such a nice gal too....
Your vote, it is worthless, and has been for a good eight years or so.
I'll remember that the next time we have a school budget that's decided by six votes. Or the next time our assembly race is decided by 90 votes out o
Re:He who counts the votes... (Score:3, Interesting)
Due to the electoral college system, analysts can predict well ahead of the election which states (and which COUNTIES) will swing the entire national election. A few county officials willing to commit fraud and a few rigged voting machines in the right places
Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:2)
So do we. The purpose of the second ammendment is to ensure that the government governs at the consent of an armed populace.
Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:2)
Also, take a good look at all the crazy stuff that went on in NOLA after Katrina hit. The courts have already decided that the government doesn't have a responsibility to protect you.
Re:And people wonder why you should be against (Score:3, Insightful)
Money = Expression = Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Since campaign finance has been regulated and re-regulated, we've seen a few chilling unintended consequences:
1. Third parties are stifled.
2. Incumbents wield huge powers.
3. Loopholes are created hiding the real flow of money.
Bringing campaign finance laws online will only enforce these consequences. Our Constitution is very clear in restricting our Congress from limiting speech. "No law" means NO LAW."
Even ridiculous rules such as mandated government sponsored matching donations restrict the minority positions from being heard in public media forums. Regulating blogs will do incredible damage.
Remember that Democrats and Republicans are both authoritarian parties intent on wealth redistribution. Neither party restricts the other, they actually both help increase the tax base and takes care of each other's cronies.
If you want the ultimate campaign finance regulation you can do a few simple steps:
1. Repeal all donation restrictions and dismantle the FEC
2. Allow anyone (including foreigners and corporations) to finance any candidate in any amount
3. Restrict politicians to their minimum Constitutional powers, so that money has no effect since they're virtually prevented from helping their donators.
4. Allow any candidate that can get on a ballot to join in any government-funded debate.
Anyone who believes more regulations will help is truly blind to the realities of politics today. A properly restrained government is a government that can do no harm. Today's two parties are joined closely, acquiring that power through money control, a.k.a. Speech control. How you spend your money is the ultimate form of expression.
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
consequences:
1. Third parties are stifled.
2. Incumbents wield huge powers.
3. Loopholes are created hiding the real flow of money.
Check your premise. I seriously doubt these effects were unintended.
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:4, Funny)
4) Profit
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:5, Interesting)
Money = speech - Interesting perspective.
It would mean that "I persuade a congressman to vote for a law" and "I pay a congressman to vote for a law" is the same thing. Well if you want to live in a society like that I guess it's fine.
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:2)
Removing that unlimited power means donations become useless. Even if Wal Mart gives ten billion to a candidate, without unlimited power the candidate has no ability to pander to Wal Mart.
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:2)
The problem here is that money trumps speech.
"Dear Congressman, I write this letter to you to urge you to...."
won't get you very far."Suh, here is my con-tri-bution to your campaign to the sum of 1 million dollars. Now, I'd also like to discuss your views on...." on the other hand....
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:2)
Well, bribery and quid pro quo would still be illegal corrupt activities. On the other hand, if I want to spend my own money to persuade other people that candidate X is the best choice, shouldn't that be my First Amendment right?
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:2)
I cannot spread lies about some one legally, I can not say things that endanger people (yell fire in a crowded theater). free speech still has limits, and limiting the money is a way to make sure all parties have an equal opportunity to be heard.
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
So, what you're saying is that if it's legalised it's no longer corruption? Sounds barking mad to me. Name one country that sucessfully operates in this manner.
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:2)
Lincoln was the first federal politician to gain unlimited powers. He had to fight a war against independent States who seceeded over his financial abuse.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo44.h tml [lewrockwell.com]
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo16.h tml [lewrockwell.com]
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Therein lay the problem. Ballots used to not require a "getting onto." You just wrote down the name of the guy you were voting for. The problem, of course, is mis-spellings, illegible handwriting, smudged ink, etc. So we adopted a new type of ballot and a large set of rules about what it takes to be on it for each state. Both Republicans and Democrats warmly embrace this system and prop it up, because without it they'd have been resigned the dustbin of history decades ago. Notice that the Republicans were the large major party to come into any prominence in America? There were some notable other third parties, like the Bull Moose and Granger business, but right around the turn of the century (i.e, 100 years ago-ish), third parties really dried up and became impotent. It's not a coincidence that the United States adopted the pre-printed balloting system for the 1892 election.
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:3, Informative)
Or, you could look at what's been happening to, say, Germany (where the entire country and its economy/public-life is swirling the toilet) and see what a train wreck you get when you have a highly fractured many-partied system. The small-scale, endless noisy squabbles result in a terribly unfocused, continually shifting landscape that never gets anything
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, generally less activity (by last-50-years historical standards) on the part of the federal government is a good thing. But "less effective" != "less intrusive," I think.
Less intrusive is less intrusive. More effective at doing what needs to be done so they don't have to be intrusive is the Good Thing.
But a congress too busy to do anything well because it's just arguing with itself is still going to do th
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you kidding me? Politians are very much like (to use some imagery that you people can relate to) . You need/want a feature, you are willing to throw some money at it to make it happen, so you approach said open source project leader and say, "I am willing to donate 6 million dollars to your cause if you are willing to take care of our needs in terms of
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Spending money does not equal speech. Buying influence DOES NOT equal freedom.
Your ridiculous premise leads to nothing except government by and for the rich.
The root of the corruption of our political system is corporate influence. Eliminate that and you will take a huge step towards restoring political power to the people. But it won't happen because corporations and politicians
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Some places (like Canada) are solving the problem by going in the opposite direction. Limit campaign financing serverely so that even those small third (fourth, fifth, sixth) parties can spend just as much on their campaign as the big two.
I prefer this way. After all, ju
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:2)
that's the funniest thing i've ever read.
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:2)
If you really really want ultimate campaign finance regulation, you have to eliminate the connection between money and speech altogether. Presidential campaigns shouldn't cost millions of dollars to run. People who feel passionately about a candidate should be able to vol
What's wrong with this scenario? Help me out. (Score:2)
All campaign finance is stopped.
Each candidate is given a set sum, paid for by taxes.
No outside money, including the candiate's, is allowed.
We then have a situation where Money==Freer Speech.
Other than those with money and a political agenda complaining loudest, where's the problem?
This insures that everyone pays for a FAIR political process, that rich psychopaths don't have a free pass.
We still have individuals and groups taking out ads, saying what they
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:2)
I'm sorry, you lost me right there. You have to be more careful about typos, that has a totally different meaning from:
Money is the ultimate corrupter;
Which I'm sure is what you meant to say. But you lose your audience right there if you make such an egregious error. Who's going to bother to read on?
Seriously, i've met thousands of people in my life, and inevitably, money and evil are positively and pretty much linearly correlated. Correlation does not require caus
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:2)
That may well be one of the more quaintly naive things I've read in a while. "money does not corrupt a politician"? Do you really believe that?
1. Repeal all donation restrictions and dismantle the FEC
2. Allow anyone (including foreigners and corporations) to finance any candidate in any amount
3. Restrict politicians to their minimum Constitutional powers, so
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Campaigns should only be able to be financed by ind
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:2)
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:2)
People saying whatever they want is the ultimate form of free speech.
Campaign donations are the ultimate form of keeping a campaign financed.
Re:Money = Expression = Speech (Score:2)
Now THAT is a fine recipe for the return of The Feudal Lords (disguised as corporations). Could you explain, percha
Yep. (Score:5, Funny)
Touch your toes. (Score:3, Funny)
Why, yes. It's made of latex and has five fingers.
So, uh... (Score:4, Interesting)
Wost Summary Ever (Score:5, Informative)
The summary is 180 degrees wrong on the bill, which will (as the title suggest) protect blogs: here's the actual text.
For more info, see this blog post [redstate.org].
campaign finance = freedom of speech? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:campaign finance = freedom of speech? (Score:2)
http://www.google.com/custom?sa=Search&cof=LW%3A50 0%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Flewroc1 a.gif%3BLH%3A93%3BAH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3A65dad07a46 1e3427%3B&domains=lewrockwell.com&q=campaign+finan ce+&sitesearch=lewrockwell.com [google.com]
Good examples of Money = Expression
Re:campaign finance = freedom of speech? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:campaign finance = freedom of speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
A limit on the money you can spend or accept in donations is a limit on freedom of speech.
When the government says that a party can only accept $1000 donation per person per year, that is great for the two mega-giant political parties who have millions of memebers. But if I am
Oh no! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh no! (Score:2)
Re:Oh no! (Score:2)
Re:Oh no! (Score:2)
prohibiting speech is not good, it IS the corruption that campaign finance reform is promoted as attempting to stop.
no (Score:2)
Court asking for regulations? (Score:4, Insightful)
a federal court has instructed the six-member Federal Election Commission to draw up regulations
I was under the impression that courts enforced the laws and regualtions written and approved by the Legislature, and wasn't in the business of ordering regulations to be made. I couldn't find anything to explain this in the article, but it's left me perplexed.
I am not totally familiar with the workings of the US legal system, but can anyone shed any more light on this for me? (Maybe it's just an inaccuracy in the article, but I'd like to know more).
Government By, For, and Of the Lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)
US Constitution, First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Of course, they're all capable of it: they've shuffled off to work their fat jobs in the Capitol for years while police have run unconstitutional "free speech zones" which exclude free speech and peaceable assemblies. When your Representative or Senator votes for this bill, demand their head on a platter. It might be the last "petition for a redress of grievances" you'll get to make.
Re:Huh..... (Score:2, Interesting)
What about slander and libel laws???
Re:Huh..... (Score:2)
Re:Huh..... (Score:2)
What about them? There's no law preventing you from slandering all you want; there are, however, no protections against the consequences of what you say.
Re:Huh..... (Score:2)
Re:Government By, For, and Of the Lawyers (Score:2)
Karl Rove, is that you? Or Scotty McCliar? Don't you have more important work, manufacturing lies about Hurricane Rita before yo
Ring ring - Globalization calling! (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to say we don't need some way to keep our political twits in check, but the FEC and the US government in general can't do a damned thing if a Canadian blogger vocally prefers candidate X instead of candidate Y in an upcoming US election.
Now, I think most of the world understands what a joke our political system has become, and doesn't really care whether Turd Sandwich or Giant Douche wins. But all the happy paid party-shills can make use of that to trivially circumvent any relevant laws. When it comes to broadcast media, Americans don't tend to watch any foreign channels, so the existing rules more-or-less work. But on the internet, people regularly view material from all over the world, usually without even knowning exactly where in the world it comes from ("Oh, gee, they spell things oddly here, must live in England... Or Australia... Or one of those other funny little micronations that I couldn't find on a map").
We don't need more feel-good laws - We need to make holding public office less of a free-for-all for the biggest lowlifes our society can produce.
chilling effect on big business (Score:2)
What is with this American idea handing over a new medium to those with the most money (big media, big business lobbying) constitutes "a chilling effect on free speech"
I mean, TV works that way, just look at Fox and CNN for how rubbish news can be under "free speech".
Re:chilling effect on big business (Score:2)
I mean, TV works that way, just look at Fox and CNN for how rubbish news can be under "free speech".
broadcasting signals over the EM airwaves are not free speech, they are tightly regulated and licensed because not everyone can have their own channel. It makes some sense that we would try to have a say over the content that is broadcast over
Re:chilling effect on big business (Score:2)
True. But even on cable or in print, big media and big business is heard a thousand times as loudly as othe folk. That's not freedom of speech, though for some strange reason it is seen as such in the USA.
Free Speech Must Be Limited and Controlled (Score:3, Insightful)
America will accept this without a whimper. We've already lost our right to assemble. Protesters are shipped off to designated fenced-in "free speech zones". US Citizens are held indefinately without charges or a trial.
Meanwhile 80% of Americans are oblivious to the massive increase in Federal power. They care more about the newest episode of The Lost than they do about their Lost Civil Rights. The 20% who do care are increasingly powerless.
Re:Free Speech Must Be Limited and Controlled (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, we haven't lost our right to assemble. What we've lost is the right to assemble wherever the fuck we want, which is a Good Thing, because until some limits were in place, "peaceful" assemblies of pro-life nutjobs would canvas abortion clinics and harrass women going in and coming out. I'm in favor of fencing people
I'm very torn on this... (Score:2)
So the real question is, is campaign finance reform worth it? Certainly it's a good concept, but if you have to severely restrict free speech in order to make it meaningful, is it worth doing at all? I'm not sure it is.
Re:I'm very torn on this... (Score:2)
If i get on slashdot and say "President Bush and his asshole friends are fucking scumbags" does that count as a blog? What counts as a blog? Ok, so lets say i only said it once... maybe then its not a blog. BUT what if i continue to contribute to slashdot, and speak my political beleifs whenever a political topic is posted?
Does slashdot become re
a leap too far... (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted that controlling political spending is a two-sided philosophical issue. But...
Oh boy (Score:3, Insightful)
For that matter, all speech is political speech. Politics isn't a partitionable category that you can draw a line around. Politics touches everything, and everything has its political aspects to it.
That aside, I thought that unregulated speech was the American way. Check out the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Oh wait, I guess we've been misreading the Constitution these last 220+ years. Laws disrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abrdiging the freedom of speech, or of the press, etc. is apparently kosher.
No. (Score:2, Interesting)
What we need to do is to fine political candidates who lie, and the media that reports these lies without verification.
The ideal solution would be to have the media jump on them, but as the media is a bunch of lazy fuckers who would reprint slander about the Pope having sex with a goat if someone anonymously faxed it in, that seems unlikely to happen, and we need to start punishing them too.
Remember, slander is an already al
What Did You Think Those Laws Were For? (Score:2)
It Can Happen Here (Score:2)
Dupe! Well sorta. (Score:2)
-Blogging as Press Freedom in Repressive Places-
The act, if NOT passed... (Score:2)
Reporters without Borders Handbook for Bloggers (Score:3, Informative)
questioning (Score:3, Funny)
"The FEC vice chairman also questioned the necessity of any rules."
Sometimes, I question the necessity of a government.
What good is "free speech"? (Score:3, Insightful)
What you can say and how you can say it are things which are being regulated these days.
Even if you say what you want, you can get ready to get sued (by some corporation or by govt or by whomever), so you also better have deep pockets.
If you're a Washigton Post reporter and have backing of the management/lawyers, you can tell things. If you're a blog writer with the same information/sources as WP guy - you probably will end up in lots of trouble.
Free speech my ass. We're all bloody slaves, people just don't want to realize/admit it.
Re:Excuse me mother fuckers (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Excuse me mother fuckers (Score:3, Interesting)
limiting the money that can be given by one group is a good thing because that means that everyone's voice can be heard. My 2 grand is as good as the Walmart CEO's 2 grand. and now that he can not give billions away to the RNC and can not monopolize tv time, my voice is almost as strong as his (he still gets access to the top guys one on one)
Saying a blog cannot post something or a forum user cannot post something, or a forum cannot post a discuss
Re:Excuse me mother fuckers (Score:2)
Well, to give an example. Suppose that because of contribution limits, I, an influential blogger, want to donate $100,000, but I can't because of contribution limits. What I can do is donate $100,000 of promotion on my website. In this case, the speech has real financial value.
Re:Excuse me mother fuckers (Score:2)
HAHAHA (Score:3, Informative)
"Today in the House of Representatives, Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) introduced a companion piece of legislation to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's bill (S.678) to exclude the Internet from the definition of "public communication" in the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002."
Keyword: EXCLUDE. The internet is EXCLUDED from the Campaign Finance Reform Act.
Re:HAHAHA (Score:3, Interesting)
Forgive my ignorance of US law relating to freedom of speech, but why should you need a law that gives you what you already have (according to the constitution)?
Re:Excuse me mother fuckers (Score:3, Interesting)
what is next? going down the street and arresting people for trying to convince others to vote for their person? fuck them all.
I don't know, I think it's a bit more complicated than people here are thinking. How do you feel about citizens going door to door, talking to their fellow citizens about why they think a particular candidate should be elected? Pretty good, right?
Do your feelings change if
Re:Full On Facsim is Coming (Score:3, Funny)
You know, (pauses to draw on cigarette) ve hav vays to make you blog.