Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Government The Internet Politics

Campaign Financing Cyber Loophole 292

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the corrupt-like-a-voting-machine dept.
goombah99 writes "The Washington Post is criticizing a little-noticed bill wending it's way through congress that would allow unlimited and unreported campaign contributions by corporations and individuals as long as it was confined to internet advertising and publicity buys. While internet spending was only $14 million last year it is growing at a rate of 30 fold over four years poising it to overtake conventional media spending."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Campaign Financing Cyber Loophole More

Campaign Financing Cyber Loophole

Comments Filter:

  • Nooooo...... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dascandy ( 869781 ) <dascandy@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:05AM (#13771702)
    Now all of Europe's going to be completely overwhelmed with advertisements for political parties they cannot even vote for.
    • ... or against !
    • http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/11/00 12220 [slashdot.org]

      And that's all I've got to say about that.
    • That's easily fixed - though I'm not sure how long it would take for a new state to be ratified these days.

    • Re:Nooooo...... (Score:5, Informative)

      by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @07:33AM (#13772303)
      Now all of Europe's going to be completely overwhelmed with advertisements for political parties they cannot even vote for.

      Actually, if you think the porn industry is a driver for technological advances, that's nothing compared to campaigning, at least when it comes to demo/geo-graphics. Have you bumped into any porn/dating-system ads that appear to pretty effectively map your ip address to your locality ("Find someone in Smallville to sleep with tonight!")? I believe that political campaigns will use everything at their disposal to make sure that their banners are being displayed where (and to whom) they think it will make the most sense.

      Those gratuitous "Do you think John Kerry was lying?" or "Do you trust George Bush?" banners as seen on Drudge or elsewhere have nothing to do with real campaigns, and are entirely bait to get people to visit some cheesy "survey" site that attempts to purchase your soul for permission-based adware installs and other shenanigans. They just know that "Is global warming real? Vote!" is a tease that many people cannot resist.

      Yes, I know that most AOL users will appear to be coming from Virginia, but most broadband users are reasonably easy to pin down in terms of state. Certainly it's pretty easy to tell when a visitor is from Europe, and to just rotate in an ad for a Vespa or something.

  • Maybe not (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kawahee ( 901497 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:13AM (#13771717) Homepage Journal
    I don't think that we're going to find billions dumped into internet advertising, why? Because internet campaigning isn't going to be growing at 30 fold forever.

    Campaign 1: $.5 million invested online
    Campaign 2: $15 million invested online.
    That's 30 fold (and 14.5 million).
    Campaign 1: $100 million invested, Campaign 2: $120 million invested.
    That's 1.2 fold (and 20 million).

    Nobody is going to target the internet with large amounts of money when it's more feasible to target the general public using television/newspaper ads. Nobody is going to say, "Hey! Look! I can donate $100 million in internet advertising" *when the money can be better utilitised somewhere else*.

    • Re:Maybe not (Score:4, Interesting)

      by aussie_a ( 778472 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:25AM (#13771746) Journal
      I don't think that we're going to find billions dumped into internet advertising,

      I don't think that's the point. The point (in my opinion) is why are they going to allow online donations to be unlimited (under a particular circumstance), but in the same circumstance offline it isn't allowed to be unlimited? It's crazy.

      When will the government stop treating everything "online" as something completely different and therefore subject to completely different laws? I'm surprised "accepting campaign donations online" hasn't been patented yet.

    • Re:Maybe not (Score:2, Insightful)

      by prattle ( 898688 )
      internet campaigning isn't going to be growing at 30 fold forever.

      Well, no, but we can reasonably expect it to replace nearly all other forms of advertising over time. If radio, tv, and newspapers are delivered to a home theatre pc then this would be internet advertising, wouldn't it?

    • Re:Maybe not (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @06:21AM (#13772112) Homepage
      Just because the the money is claimed for internet advertising does not mean it is actually spent there. Just think of sites owned by the players and charging enourmous amounts for advertising space i.e. payoffs as internet advertising profits.

      Basically a less than unfront politician is enabling a new method of illicit campaign financing to get passed what is already a pretty shaky set of legislation. They must have thought the current legislation was just taking too much effort to work around and to be honest the current set arn't the brightest and managed to stuff up every now and then, so there after a much easier system of funding (the republican mantra, eliminate that nightmare of bureaucratic red tape with an aim to maximising productivity and profits togethor with full employment for family members and friends).

  • Does my liberalism require that I reject this? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ReformedExCon ( 897248 ) <reformed.excon@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:16AM (#13771724)
    I am about as liberal as you can get. I think that the role of the government should be expanded such that it provides a very large safety net for the disadvantaged, and I think that many services that we now pay for ought to be subsidized such that those services (medical, roads, etc) are free/affordable for at least the most disadvantaged and ideally for the whole citizenry.

    But I am absolutely against recent "liberal" attempts to stifle Free Speech by restricting campaign contributions. I think it is paramount to a repeal of the First Amendment to say that you cannot use your money in the way that you see fit. If a person wishes to give speeches on the corner in support of his candidate, it is wrong to take away his right to do so. If a person uses his own money to buy a soap box and megaphone to do it more effectively, it is wrong to take away his right to spend that money. If a person gives money to his candidate in order that the candidate can furnish other supporters with soap boxes and megaphones, is it right to take that right away? Where do we draw the line? Why do we draw the line?

    It is not anyone's business but the IRS how I spend my money, in my opinion. If I want to blow a million dollars on TV ads for my favored candidate, the government ought not have the right to stop me anymore than they have the right to stop me from buying lollipops for the sick kids in the hospital.

    How the "liberals" got caught up in this illiberal crusade is beyond me. It smacks more of anti-Republicanism than anything else. By restricting the campaign contributions of the rich, they effectively limit the amount the Republicans can take in from their supporters. That that crackpot McCain and the worthless Feingold were the people bringing the originally passing bill to the floor is no big surprise, but that we have widespread support of the erosion of our most cherished First Amendment rights among the people sworn to protect and defend our Constitution is abominable.

    Good for this current bill. Let's bring back Free Speech to the citizenry.
    • this is not about free speech. the problem is politicians will end up only catering to corperations and the wealthy (like they don't already). of course they need the votes of the masses to get into office. but without campaigning, they won't get the votes. without any restrictions, the winner will always be the one who sold out the most. it's one of the loopholes of democracy. it just seems to effect republicans more becuase they are a bit more big business friendly.
      • it just seems to effect republicans more becuase they are a bit more big business friendly.

        But the left side of the spectrum seems to attract plenty of Streisands, Soroses, Speilburgs, Jobses, and the rest. There are plenty of rich democrats/liberals - to say nothing of the big labor unions, most of which have more to spend on influencing campaigns than a given company ever would be able to get into the budget. In fact, those unions exist almost entirely to do things like that (collectively influence oth

    • Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:31AM (#13771763) Homepage Journal
      Well, I think there are two distinct things here:
      i) unlimited spending
      ii) undisclosed spending

      Like you, I'm torn on the former. There's a personal liberty issue, but the consequences of unlimited spending are worse, IMHO. Unlimited spending by the two bug parties acts as an effective barrier to entry to third parties. They can't draw much corporate funding until they have influence, and grass roots funding simply can't compete to obtain that influence. Personally, I'd bar all corporate contributions and allow unlimited personal contributions, from anyone eligible to vote. Control of Government should be left to citizens who have that right... it's what the Founding Fathers wanted.

      ii) Undisclosed political contributions (above a very low level) are absolutely inexcusable. Accountability, accountability, accountability. The electorate has the right to know who is financing a candidate. It's a vital piece of information in the democratic process.
      • Unlimited spending by the two bug parties acts as an effective barrier to entry to third parties.

        Yes and no. The winner-takes-all nature of the American political system makes it almost impossible for third parties to get anywhere even if they do have money. Whether that's a feature or a bug is arguable.

        Accountability, accountability, accountability.

        Now that I'll agree with.
        • The winner-takes-all nature of the American political system makes it almost impossible for third parties to get anywhere even if they do have money. Whether that's a feature or a bug is arguable.

          Well, look [infoplease.com], I just can say that the system don't work since 1876, they could have changed it by the time ? And it seems to me that the original system (1789-1800) was more democratic (not by the numbers, but by the constitution article).

          I already did a post [slashdot.org] about that in June.

          Voting methods like Schulze method [wikipedia.org] used
          • There are many alternative voting systems. Some may work better than others... in some circumstances. Germany's recent difficulty in choosing a new Chancellor shows the problems with parliamentary systems that give rise to numerous parties.

            In the American system, there are still numerous parties, it's just that the coalitions are permanent, and you vote for the coalitions. Both the Democrats and the Republicans represent a range of differing views that would be quite unusual in a single European political
            • Germany's recent difficulty in choosing a new Chancellor shows the problems with parliamentary systems that give rise to numerous parties.

              This problem is an accurate reflection of the outcome of the election. People withdrew support for the left coalition, without giving support to a right one. Therefore they get a center one.

              In the American system, there are still numerous parties, it's just that the coalitions are permanent, and you vote for the coalitions.

              The problem there is that the American people oft
        • Yes and no. The winner-takes-all nature of the American political system makes it almost impossible for third parties to get anywhere even if they do have money. Whether that's a feature or a bug is arguable.

          It's a feature. Just look at the train wreck that was the last election in Germany to see what a highly fractured representative government turns into. You get people running the show with only 10 or 15% of the vote - they spend all of their time swinging deals with each other and no time actually ge

      • Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @08:50AM (#13772763) Homepage Journal
        Unlimited spending by the two bug parties acts as an effective barrier to entry to third parties.

        I'm sick of bug parties, I think we need scientists to create sterile male politicians with glow-in-the-dark gonads to try to wipe them out.

        We need some new parties... ones that represent someone other than money and status quo (i.e., the big two) or crackpots (i.e., most of the rest).

    • I'm liberal like hell too.

      And in principle I agree that an individual AND organization can support political parties or candidates they like, be it orally, physically or financial wise.

      What's troubling however is that, this this 'rights' is being literally abused, not to 'support' but rather 'buy' a candidate or party.

      Really i can't see how does an organization or business paying, yes paying, 100k to Republican and then another 100k on democrats can signify 'support'. Thats just covering the grounds.

      I suppo
    • "I think it is paramount to a repeal of the First Amendment..."

      I think it is of paramount importance that I point out that the word you wanted there is "tantamount" :-) (now watch someone point out that I misspelled it)

      I have to say I agree. Although money is a big part of why politics stinks, I firmly believe that the First Ammendment either means what it says or we have surrendered it. My confliction is over disclosure. I wanna know which candidate is being bought by which mega-corporation, but anonymo

    • Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AthenianGadfly ( 798721 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:39AM (#13771784)

      In theory, I think you make a good point. However, there are a couple of things that you don't take into consideration. For example, do we really want our elections to be for sale to the highest bidder (more so than they already are, that is)? An unlimited amount of money poured into a campaign can effectively buy a certain outcome, given how susceptible the general population is to advertising.

      Also, consider the nature of most of the "speech" that results from campaign contributions. Have you ever seen a political television advertisement that added anything worthwhile to the discussion - or indeed do anything that wasn't mainly posturing and hand-waving?

      I certainly think that individuals should have the right to say what they want about politics (just like anything else), and spend their own money in the process. However, I would draw the line when it comes to giving other people enough money for them to repeat their mantra loudly enough and often enough that it drowns out the dissenting voices.

      • "Also, consider the nature of most of the "speech" that results from campaign contributions. Have you ever seen a political television advertisement that added anything worthwhile to the discussion - or indeed do anything that wasn't mainly posturing and hand-waving?"

        Disgusting. You have no concept of what "shall make no law" means, do you? Who the hell are you to decide whether or not a particular message is "worthwhile" or not?
      • This is kindof like mice voting to put a bell on the cat. It sounded like a great plan, till they tried to implement it.

        If someone has money, then that money can be turned into political clout. Period. As long as people can write newspaper columns or own and edit newspapers, they can be paid to support one candidate or another, directly or indirectly. To prevent this from happening would require enormous restrictions on individual liberty. This isn't like with judges, where you can prevent someone from brib
        • If someone has money, then that money can be turned into political clout. Period. As long as people can write newspaper columns or own and edit newspapers, they can be paid to support one candidate or another, directly or indirectly. To prevent this from happening would require enormous restrictions on individual liberty.

          That may be, but giving money to a political party is different. Newspapers influnce opinion, which may influence policy. A direct contribution directly influences policy, and that is fun

          • Newspapers influnce opinion, which may influence policy. A direct contribution directly influences policy, and that is fundamentally undemocratic.

            I have a simple solution.

            A simple solution which is easily circumvented if employed as actual policy. Preventing campaign finance abuse is like trying to prevent piracy. You either have to clamp down all mass media, or there will be a loophole to sneak through.

            Look at it this way; during an election campaign, could I, as a private individual, purchase a newspaper
      • do we really want our elections to be for sale to the highest bidder

        I understand what you're saying, but I disagree that this is what campaign finance legislation is preventing. The law is telling individuals that they can't speak. That's me. Me, oni, and you, AthenianGadfly. We'll get fined or sent to jail if we put up a website with a political message.

        Doesn't that seem wrong to you?? Sure, the prohibitian is "only" 30 days before an election. I can put up my website 60 days before the election, no
    • The problem is that you are being overly idealistic. In reality, conflict of interest is a bad thing. Humans are not perfect and the so-called safety nets you say we need on a societal level we also need on a personal level. Many countries have anti-lobbying rules to prevent the individuals that comprise the legislature from having a conflict of interest between representing their constituents and representing the people that "contribute" massive amounts of money to their "campaign".

      At the end of the d
    • You forgot one little detail about the freedom of speech, that I think is rather important. You should have the right to protest when you want to. that is speaking.. You should not be sent to a "free speech zone" in a razor wire cage a mile from the event you are protesting.. National Security my ass!

      Oh, and the other key part of the freedom of speach, the corallary I guess, (maybe the inverse).. I should have a right to not listen....

      • Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @08:00AM (#13772447)
        You forgot one little detail about the freedom of speech, that I think is rather important. You should have the right to protest when you want to. that is speaking.. You should not be sent to a "free speech zone" in a razor wire cage a mile from the event you are protesting.. National Security my ass!

        So, if I really can't stand something that Hillary Clinton is sqawking about, can I just get up on the stage next to her and protest? No? How about 10 feet from her? Maybe 20 feet? No? But all I want to do is wave around a giant puppet head of her with horns on it and beat my loud drums! It's freedom of speech, and I demand that my puppet head be visible next to her during while she's talking, since it's my freedom of speech, too.

        And if I can't have that, I demand the ability to stand in the public street and block traffic. I don't care about people who are trying to drive to where Hillary is going to be, it's my puppet display that should trump all other forms of expression, even if an ambulance carrying your heart-attack-having grandmother is stopped because of me.

        What's that? Maybe there should be a permitting process for the use of public space so that Hillary and her supporters can apply for and get use of it for her rantings, and I can use if for my rantings too, when it's my turn? Oh wait - we already have that system, and it works just fine. That doesn't seem to influence the people that want to smash the windows of a Starbucks store to somehow retaliate against The Man for having a permitting process, but there's no satisfying some freedom-minded people, I suppose (unless they get to smash something owned by millions of people's 401k investments).

    • Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by znu ( 31198 ) <znu.public@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @04:10AM (#13771859)
      I think to understand the argument against unlimited campaign contributions, you have to go past the letter of the First Amendment and look at its purpose. Why is it important, from the perspective of society, that we have a right to free speech?

      I would argue that it's important because it's essential for democracy. It allows ideas to be introduced and challenged, accepted or rejected, on a level playing field. When you allow unlimited spending on things like political advertising, the playing field is no longer level. It's like having a debate between two sides, where both sides show up with the largest PA systems they can afford and try to drown each other out.

      Does it really serve freedom in the larger sense to allow people to act in ways that subvert an essential component of liberal democracy? We don't allow people to tamper with voting machines -- we should not allow them to distort the public discourse either.
      • Does it really serve freedom in the larger sense to allow people to act in ways that subvert an essential component of liberal democracy? We don't allow people to tamper with voting machines -- we should not allow them to distort the public discourse either.

        Who decides which ideas and expressions contribute to the public discourse, and which distort it?
      • We don't allow people to tamper with voting machines ...

        That made me laugh.

      • Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dannon ( 142147 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @07:08AM (#13772211) Journal
        I suggest that the cure to "distorted" public discourse is more political speech, not less.

        These campaign finance laws are all about limiting the quantity of speech, and your complaint is with the content of it. The people you want to thwart are still going to find ways of getting their message across. They've got the money to buy the lawyers to find the loophoes. And, in the mean time, if way of outside-the-establishment types want to put in our own two bits, we have to prove that we weren't contributing to a party. Heck, I don't even like the two-party system we've got, but if I buy some radio air-time to say so, I've "contributed" to a political party, by these rules! It's ridiculous!

        And if we start getting into laws that regulate the content, you can look for even more pro-establishment favoratism.

        When it comes to government corruption, more government is not the solution.

      • Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by RexRhino ( 769423 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @08:03AM (#13772461)
        But, by definition, the "level playing field" as you call it will be decided and enforced by the political elite. So essentially, you are putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

        Have you ever looked at the disasterous effect campaign finance reform has had on small political parties in the U.S.? It has nearly destroyed them. Small political parties depend on few people giving larger donations. Large political parties depend on more people giving smaller donations. Why do you think the two major parties, and all the mainstream politicians are clammering for campaign finance reform, and the small parties hate it? Because it eliminates anybody but the Republicans and Democrats from the game.

        One thing that is hard for most people (like you) to understand nowadays, since the most prevalent religion is state-worship... that the government is not omnipotent and benevolent. If the government says "We are going to regulate campaign finance to level the playing field", that doesn't mean that the government intends to level the playing field, nor that the government is capable of that if it wanted to. What "campaign finance reform" is, is the absolute control over all forms of political speech by the political elite. THAT is what people like you support, even if you don't want to admit it.

      • Wrong idea about what it's free FROM (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @08:10AM (#13772497)
        I would argue that it's important because it's essential for democracy. It allows ideas to be introduced and challenged, accepted or rejected, on a level playing field.

        "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean you're free from me speaking louder than you because I'm persuasive enough to get get several other people to join me (pool funds, whatever). The constitution's guarantee of free speech refers to your freedom from interference by the government. That's why the campaign finance laws limiting speech are such a bad idea - they involve the government judging when and how you can express your opinion about something... something that's exactly contrary to the founder's strong words on the subject.

        Does it really serve freedom in the larger sense to allow people to act in ways that subvert an essential component of liberal democracy?

        How does two people getting together to say something against what you have to say equal subversion? It's exactly the point - it's free association and speech, exactly as guaranteed under the constitution. If you can't manage to get enough people to see your point, and thus attract the same communications horsepower as the people you oppose, then you need to re-examine the merits of your position. Unpopular, minority opinions do get through the larger noise when they are compelling enough. See voting rights and similar issues as examples.

        • The constitution's guarantee of free speech refers to your freedom from interference by the government.

          And regarding broadcast media, the government is already explicitly disallowing everyone but the networks from broadcasting a signal over the public spectrum. This is why it is possible to make it illegal to use profanity or show a nipple on television, and why the equal time law was legal.

          So if there is ever going to be any sort of effective campaign financing law, it will affect only television a

        • "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean you're free from me speaking louder than you because I'm persuasive enough to get get several other people to join me (pool funds, whatever).

          But it does mean that I should be free from some forms of persuasion. i.e. I can't persuade people to join me using a baseball bat. Why should your form of persuasion (financial power) be allowed? Why should some people get a greater voice because they can blugeon people to join them with bribes?
          • But it does mean that I should be free from some forms of persuasion. i.e. I can't persuade people to join me using a baseball bat. Why should your form of persuasion (financial power) be allowed? Why should some people get a greater voice because they can blugeon people to join them with bribes?

            I'm afraid that's not a good analogy. Physically forcing you to do something (say, with a baseball bat) is called assault (plus several other illegal things, depending on the circumstances). Sitting down with ano
    • Which raises the age-old question: how many politicians do you want to buy today?
    • I personally think campaign contributions should be totally disallowed. The main problem with it is they're simply buying laws, and it means the politicians act in the best interests of the corperations and the people paying them off, buying laws, instead of the best interests of the people.

      The politicians are civil servants, which means they should be paid by taxes, not by corperations. They're the lawmakers so their allegences must be to the people.
    • I am about as liberal as you can get. I think that the role of the government should be expanded such that it provides a very large safety net for the disadvantaged, and I think that many services that we now pay for ought to be subsidized such that those services (medical, roads, etc) are free/affordable for at least the most disadvantaged and ideally for the whole citizenry.

      That's not liberal, that's socialist. Being Liberal means you support people's freedom to do things; socialism means you think soci

      • Really all that "liberal" means in the US nowadays is "all that is wrong with the world". It has been established by years of campaigning and propaganda, and very few people will label themselves as "liberal", even if their particular views would fall into that category (and a great many have so-called liberal views).
      • Yeah, basically words mean whatever people want them to mean over here in the states.

        "Liberalism" is always conflated with socialism in the US. Socialists call themselves 'progressives.' Socialist feminists and radical separatist femanists are conflated with liberal feminists.

        The radical right started a campaigin against the national endowment for the arts claiming the NEA supported pornography and things like that, and the result was cutting funding for programs like Sesame Street and public broadcasting..

    • I agree that free speech entitles you to spend your own money to publish your views. However, this is not quite what political campaign financing does. (And the same can be said for the general lobby and PR machinery.)

      If the CEO of a large oil company wants to spend his money or his company's money to make public that "Hi, I am the CEO of Exxon Mobil and I support candidate X for president because I think it would be good for the economy and my company if he gets elected.", then that would be perfectly ac

    • You're assuming that everyone has the same amount of money.

      If anyone can spend however much they want, then the gap between the rich and the poor (or do you deny that exists?) means that only the rich have a say.

      Do you think the rich have the same interests at heart as the poor? Or even middle class?

    • Honestly, I think the only way to go about this is to completely outlaw all campaign contributions. There should be a complete overhaul of the voting system, whereby candidates wil have to present their views and ideas in a public forum, open to challenges from their opposition and from the public. This would scale up nicely, with higher level debates being opposed by defeated candidates from previous rounds. The main reason this doesn't exist already is because the current political systems all eveolved p

    • Let's bring back Free Speech to the citizenry.

      You mean like having Free Speech Zones for people who oppose you politcally?

    • But I am absolutely against recent "liberal" attempts to stifle Free Speech by restricting campaign contributions. I think it is paramount to a repeal of the First Amendment to say that you cannot use your money in the way that you see fit.

      It's absurd to clain that free speech is infringed by limiting advertising. Everyone will be heard if contributions are limited; just not the richest 24/7 as they would be with unlimited funding. Why isn't it also "stifling" of the free speech of poor people that they

    • How the "liberals" got caught up in this illiberal crusade is beyond me. It smacks more of anti-Republicanism than anything else.

      Speaking as a conservative, I figured that liberals weren't particularly for or against it. The mainstream media, of course, supported it because it gave them more influence, and enough incumbents and established lobby groups supported it because they knew ways around it.

      So I suspect media spin of it as a left-right issue was what threw people off. The right wing immediately assum

    • Good for this current bill. Let's bring back Free Speech to the citizenry.

      Need I remind you that Corporations were completely forbidden from all participation in US Political campaigns untill 1886: In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company [118 U.S. 394]. They were regulated by the States and subject to all STATE regulations, taxes and fees etc. Seems to me that removing Corporate personhood is a CONSERVATIVE concept, rather than a liberal one. But it is the Liberals that are pointing this

    • If you follow John Locke, you could certainly make a case that money, being an abstracted form of property, is an extension of the individual as all other property is. In this view, the autonomy of the individual is restricted if the way that the individual spends money is restricted. Consequently, one can argue that spending limits on elections is a restriction of the autonomy of the individual and therefore is an illiberal idea.

      But if you follow Rousseau you would counter that what is abstract is not real

  • BU$H G1V3S J00 UP 2 3 EXTR4 1NCH3S CL1CK H3R3 2 V0T3

  • Crikey (Score:5, Funny)

    by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:18AM (#13771729) Homepage Journal
    ... if America keeps going along these lines, it won't be long before they elect a completely incompetent President, whose only qualifications are high level connections and the ability to outspend his opponent due to massive corporate contributions.

    I don't look forward toward that day, let me tell you.

  • Clumsy way to protect blogs? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Holmwood ( 899130 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:20AM (#13771736)
    It's starting to look as though McCain-Feingold will end up hurting larger blogs, as they risk being counted as contributions during an election cycle. Manolo's Shoe Blog is probably pretty safe, but Daily Kos and Instapundit aren't. I'd bet both their bandwidth bills violate the cap, and they both tend to back specific candidates. So, this law is likely simply a clumsy way to protect blogs.

    • More likely it's a way to protect trolls and astroturfers; from what I see this is the huge growth market in internet advertising--especially for political candidates. Here's a few fun things you can try:
      • Google for bits of body text from astroturf trolls. See how often the same excact text shows up in other places.
      • If you have access to IP logs, note where your astroturf trolls come from. See any patterns?
      • Look at the posting time of day/speed of your astroturf trolls vs. regular comments. Who seems t
  • And that has nothing to do with the fact that I run 200 blogs.

  • better the Internet than TV (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bersl2 ( 689221 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:46AM (#13771808) Journal
    1. I can block it more easily.
    2. Fewer stupid people will passively receive ads than with TV, per ad dollar spent. It's better that they waste their money online.
    3. Dollars spent on ad space will be far more distributed and to substantially less rich people, effectively redistributing income. At least, the money is much less likely to end up in the pocketbooks of Big Media. Yay, capitalism and (partial) socioeconomic justice at the same time!

    Why, again, would this not be an improvement?

  • Doesn't matter (Score:2, Informative)

    by Jekler ( 626699 )
    It's a waste of money to advertise to the public. It's not like the public gets to vote, as evidenced by the 2000 election.

    And a 30 fold increase over four years? That's not so astounding. Virtually everything which has an initial state and a larger end state, grows 30 fold over some arbitrary period of time. I mean it would be one thing if you could say it would grow 30 fold indefinitely.

    The number of MP3s I bought grew 30 fold over the last year. Once I took a sip of orange mountain dew, I like
    • The public isn't supposed to vote in presidential elections. They exercise influence on those elections through their state governments, who select the electors. The electors aren't even really supposed to have their minds made up in advance, either, that's kind of a corruption of the system resulting from the unforseen rise of political parties. It still bothers me that people tend to complain only when there are vague signs of the system working as intended (i.e. when the results don't match public opi

  • C'mon, really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by svunt ( 916464 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @03:53AM (#13771825) Homepage Journal
    I can't for for the life of me see the justification for ANY exemptions from campaign financing laws. If copmpany A spends $3.50 on shoelaces for candidate B, then I want to be able to see that, and the same goes for internet advertising. It's unfortunate that whatever justification is being offered for this bill isn't mentioned in TFA. At the end of the day, any off-the-record financing simply adds weight to long-standing suspicions that everyone in Washington is for sale. That being the case, it would be nice to at least know what the going rates are.
    • Anyone have a practical way of perhaps preventing corporations from spending ANYTHING, at ALL?

      Last I checked, they can't even VOTE... I don't see an issue.

      I feel they should just have to deal with it by having no influence at ALL.
      • Suppose a corporation with deep pockets was to buy a lot of TV ad slots just before the election. Enough ad slots to make it next to impossible for less well known candidates to get air time. Would it count as a campaign contribution if they were advertizing their own products?? No, probably not, even though strategically flooding the ad-space would have the effect of cutting out the political competition...

        That's how a corporation can wield influence...

  • In Related News, (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anti-Trend ( 857000 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @04:31AM (#13771891) Homepage Journal
    Filtering of email and blocking of web ads considered a subvertive terrorist activity.

  • A Modest Proposal (Score:5, Funny)

    by FishandChips ( 695645 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @05:14AM (#13771965) Journal
    You have to sympathize with policitians everywhere, forced to lead demeaning lives on the margins of society because such a high proportion of the meagre funds they need to survive have to be concealed and cannot be admitted to. Why, a decent family man cannot even invite his friends to a cocaine and call-girl party without having to pretend that he's paying for it out of his own life savings.

    It would be much more dignified if US politicians were allowed to nail a simple "Bill of Fare" to the front door of their office suites. This would itemize the services on offer - "Have your business rivals arrested - $10 million", "Pollute a wilderness area - $67 million", "Hunt and Shoot Wetbacks for Sport - $39 million", etc. - but the quid pro quo is that it would no longer be legal in any way to accept undocumented contributions.

    We'd then all know where we stand, and politicians would be given back the one thing they crave above all else - respect.
  • The U.S. government is for sale to whomever has money: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [futurepower.org].

    Sneaky legislation is just one small part of the corruption.

  • While internet spending was only $14 million last year it is growing at a rate of 30 fold over four years poising it to overtake conventional media spending.

    This just in: Scientists report that there is no detectable change in the sun's radiation, hence we will truly be able to live on earth forever. Another report notices that since cell phones are getting half as small every two years, in the year 2015, they will be so small that we will be required to press the buttons using a magnifying glass and a n

  • MAKE UP YOUR MINDS, PEOPLE! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @06:37AM (#13772146) Homepage Journal
    Government: We think we should count blogs as political contributions and regulate them under the existing election laws.
    Slashbots: BWAAAAAA! DON'T YOU REGULATE MY BLOGS!

    News reporter: Political blogs are big money, and there may be a loophole that will allow massive donations to political parties in the form of Internet advertising that won't be regulated by the election laws.
    Slashbots: BWAAAAAA! Meaney politicians will flood the net with ads. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DOOOO SOMETHING!

    Make up your minds, people. Either blogs are NOT regulated, and the People With Money And An Agenda will use them, or blogs get regulated. Sauce for the goose, good for the gander.
    • I don't get the whole bloging scene anyways. There are a LOT of people out there. Most of which I could not care less for. I mean just because you *can* write doesn't mean I want to read it [and for many the same probably applies to me as well].

      I'm not saying blogging is bad or should be stopped. I just don't see the hype over it. I mean the fact that a blog business can make millions in revenue just boggles my mind.

      People have to learn what "rhetoric" is. Put some perspective on things.

      Tom

      • Re:MAKE UP YOUR MINDS, PEOPLE! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SQL Error ( 16383 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @08:19AM (#13772560)
        Well, that's just it. Convenient blogging software made it easy for people not just to create web sites, but to keep them updated.

        So they do.

        Now, it's true that some of them shouldn't, and many of them aren't worth reading, and many more are of interest only to a small circle - friends or family or people of common interested (whether that be politics or raising puppies or knitting pullovers).

        But some of them really are good.

        And remember that those millions in revenues are spread among millions of bloggers, and the average blogger is lucky to cover his bandwidth bill. A few make worthwhile amounts of money; one or two make enough to live on.
    • Regulate the parties, don't regulate the blogs. But it is obvious, isn't it?

  • What about Ads couched as Entertainment? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    When are they going to close the campaign contribution loophole introduced by Michael Moore. You know, you release a huge movie that's a major negative campaign ad against Bush, yet it doesn't count because it's making Michael money.
  • How does this piece of legislation relate to the FEC's attempt to restrict campaign speech on political blogs, previously covered here:

    http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/ 23/1226250&tid=153&tid=95&tid=219 [slashdot.org]

    ?

    (Note that Slashdot got the summary of the bill entirely wrong -- it was actually designed to amend the FEC Act of 1971 to exempt the Internet)
  • There's a part of me that is as usual disappointed in the usual extension of big money into politics, but, in 2004, I and thousands of others ran very partisan blogs. It would be nice if those of us on the far left and far right that are nuts enough to pretend that our respective polical parties care about anything to at least reach a compromise and cash in on the political advertising cow on both sides of the aisle!

    Big rich donors giving unlimited donations to political blogs such as mine? Who could poss

  • Politicians are scum and here's what to do.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Electric Eye ( 5518 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2005 @08:32AM (#13772649)
    I'm going to skip my diatribe on how low these fucking scum are. But I think the McCain Feingold Act doesn't go far enough. In order to completely eliminate the $ factor in politics, there should be a strict, equal limit on what a politician can spend on a race. State congressman? $20,000. Gongressman? $50,000. President? $1,000,000. That's it. No loopholes. No third party interest groups.
    Of course, this will never, eVAR happen, as these egomaniac dirtbags, like that fucker Tom DeLay who I pray goes to prison for life, will fight to the death over anything like this.
    Free Pr0n http://excaliburfilms.com/partner/mainaffiliate.cf m?ID=1765 [excaliburfilms.com]

  • Here's a solution.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by hcob$ ( 766699 )
    Make a law that every Legal Entity (corporations are a legal entity, as are joe, jim, and mike) can contribute a maximum of $20 to each candidate. That way, the single man down on the corner can buy just as much influence as the mega-corp.... at least on paper.

Slashdot Top Deals

He who steps on others to reach the top has good balance.

Close