July 12, 2001

11:27 AM

Campaign Finace Reform May be Stalled for up to a year. Way to go team! USA USA USA.... wait a second. You guys suck. Does it amaze anyone how much our "leaders" suck?
posted by aj100 (52 comments total)

The death of this bill is a good thing as it was a flat out attack on First Amendment freedoms. I hope it's permanently gone.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:39 AM on July 12, 2001

Sometimes the suckiness of our leaders takes my breath away. And the arrogance, the pandering, the graft, and fatuousness.

However, in the case of finance reform, I think maybe they are doing the right thing here. You have some real First Amendment issues when you take about limited people's ability to participate in the democratic process. Instead of finance limits or arbitrary divisions between hard and soft money, I think simple full disclosure would solve many of the problems. Every elected official, from your local alderman to the President, details his campaign cash flow, to the penny. These documents are audited by independant accoutants for accuracy, and posted (web would be perfect) for all to see and chew over.

We've already made some steps in this direction.
posted by UncleFes at 11:47 AM on July 12, 2001

Gah, LJ! You're too damned fast.
posted by UncleFes at 11:47 AM on July 12, 2001

Yes, allowing the wealthy minority to have an extraordinary sway over politics in America certainly was the intention of the first amendment.
posted by Doug at 12:17 PM on July 12, 2001

Yes, allowing the wealthy minority to have an extraordinary sway over politics in America certainly was the intention of the first amendment.

The poor can particpate just as well, through collective action or through their advocates. Or through their vote. Remember, there are a lot more poor than rich, and each person, rich or poor, only gets one vote. Corporations get no vote.
posted by UncleFes at 12:20 PM on July 12, 2001

"Campaign Finance Reform" is a flat-out attack on the first amendment, and I'm always amazed that it's not the liberals that are trying to kill it. I'm glad it's gone (for now).

Politics runs on money. Without money, you can't buy TV time. Without money, you can't send representatives to Washington to make your perspective heard. Without money, you can't afford to make up bumper stickers or yard signs. Can you influence your friends and neighbors? Sure. But it's difficult for the common woman/man to have a national impact on his/her own. In the modern world, money equals political strength and a voice in the process.

Imagine a world where soft money were outlawed. In this world, the rich would be able to directly influence the political process because they can afford to run their own political ads. Their power is secure.

But me, I'm not exactly Bill Gates. If I want to have a voice in the process, I've got to get together with a bunch of like-minded people and combine my resources with theirs. If all the lefty's here on MeFi were to pool their money, then maybe they could start to influence politics on a national scale. Each one alone can't really do much.

But once you get rid of soft money, you've made that second scenario illegal; leaving only the rich with a true voice in the process. Campaign finance "reform" is a direct attack on the free voice of the people.

Remember, the first step in building support for the American Revolutionary War was when the rich guys started handing out pamphlets (like the Federalist papers). The poor may have been just as smart/informed, but there wasn't much they could do.

[Note: Is the above accurate? I think that it is, but history's not my strong suit. Somebody help me out here.]
posted by gd779 at 12:26 PM on July 12, 2001

Even though soft money is relatively insignificant when compared to the total amount of campaign financing, most of it enables parties to support challengers, not incumbents. By restricting it, this bill makes incumbent officeholders much harder to remove from office

On the other hand, PAC contributions mostly go to incumbents - which is not covered by this bill. What a surprise.

Furthermore, it makes it a crime to mention the name of a federal candidate in any radio or television ad run by a corporation or labor union within 60 days of an election. Surely you can't think that this is not a blatant First Amendment assault?
posted by ljromanoff at 12:33 PM on July 12, 2001

why must we so often call into question anything by referring to our Rights? Is it a "right" that the lobby guys and the coporations that send them to DC run our nation so that the drug companies, the energy companies, the medical companies, the insurance industryk, the lawyers etc can pull the strings that give them special favors and those without huge sums of money must simply go along with whatever gets done to them? Is that what the first amendment means? Is it my "right" to do any thing I want at any time because I am a free guy in a free country? At one time, keeping slaves was a "right." At one time, not allowing women to vote was a right. At one time, sending someone to fight and die instead of you, if called up, was a right. At one time not having a standing army was ok At one time no national taxation was the policy. Things change, no?
posted by Postroad at 12:34 PM on July 12, 2001

Free TV time to candidates!!
posted by jennak at 12:45 PM on July 12, 2001

The thing is, corporations and pac's do not vote - people do. even black people and women, as himcandenza pointed out. So, why support a bill that would curtail your constituional right to participate in the democratic process by supporting your candidate in the second most effective method available?

come to believe that even black people and women should vote, along with many other wacky unconstitutional notions

I'm not sure I remember the part about no blacks voting in the constitution. If that was the case, their vote would have been invalidated by the supreme court. Same for women.

I think what changed is the societal definition of what a "man" was. 1770: man = white landowner. 2001: man = everyone over 18.

Things change, no?

Does this mean you are for, or against, freedom of speech?

Free TV time to candidates!!

Who'd watch?
posted by UncleFes at 12:53 PM on July 12, 2001

Remember, the first step in building support for the American Revolutionary War was when the rich guys started handing out pamphlets (like the Federalist papers). The poor may have been just as smart/informed, but there wasn't much they could do.

Of course, pamphleteering had an important role in the English Civil War, but it was especially useful for the poorest and most radical groups, such as the proto-socialist Diggers.

Of course, even the rise of the internet hasn't challenged the barriers to entry of modern broadcast media, where the only thing that matters is television. And it's here where the negative grammatical constructions of the US Constitution work against it: in order not to restrict the First Amendment rights of those with sufficient power, influence and financial clout to exploit these forums, you perpetuate a system that essentially prevents a majority from having the chance to speak, and thus be subject to that amendment's protection.

It's as if there were an amendment that said "Congress shall make no law restricting the right to own property", and rather than challenge that amendment, you'd allow a small group of landowners to divvy up property between them, while the majority remain their tenants.

And it's situations like that which make me think of Orwell.

"Freedom is slavery; war is peace; ignorance is strength."
posted by holgate at 1:23 PM on July 12, 2001

Corporations get no vote

Yeah, they don't have to. They just give their favorite politician lot's o' money and the politician votes for them. Pure Democracy!
posted by bob bisquick at 1:53 PM on July 12, 2001

Of course, even the rise of the internet hasn't challenged the barriers to entry of modern broadcast media, where the only thing that matters is television. And it's here where the negative grammatical constructions of the US Constitution work against it: in order not to restrict the First Amendment rights of those with sufficient power, influence and financial clout to exploit these forums, you perpetuate a system that essentially prevents a majority from having the chance to speak, and thus be subject to that amendment's protection.

The right to free speech doesn't mean the right to have an audience of several million every night at 6 and 11. The fact that my every word can't be heard by everyone in America at once does not therefore mean I have no free speech.

And it's situations like that which make me think of Orwell.

Suggesting that the lack of universal and perpetual access to the mass media by every citizen therefore meaning that there is no free speech is the real Orwellian doublespeak here.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:00 PM on July 12, 2001

And yet again you miss my point. There is no "right to free speech" in the first amendment. It's a right "not to have speech restricted". The point being that you have to possess something in the first place, in order to have it protected from being taken away.
posted by holgate at 2:22 PM on July 12, 2001

Holgate is not making an argument for universal access based on the rights in the First Amendment, romanoff. He is criticizing the interpretation of the First Amendment that is possible for protecting moneyed interests' stranglehold on electoral exposure. Read his post again.

You may have misunderstood this part:

you perpetuate a system that essentially prevents a majority from having the chance to speak, and thus be subject to that amendment's protection.

This sentence does not imply a right to universal access to citizens, but a larger part of that majority having once gained it like the moneyed interests, it would be able to protect it under the language of the amendment that you supplicate.

Suggesting that the lack of universal and perpetual access to the mass media by every citizen therefore meaning that there is no free speech is the real Orwellian doublespeak here.

The Orwellian doublespeak that he is referring to is the appearance of protection, but protection of what, miniscule power, while real power is protected as well and will remain so, thus rendering this little protection as inconsequential, as it feasibly may be.
posted by mblandi at 2:25 PM on July 12, 2001

Alright then, how will this bill help individuals? It won't. It is designed to be palatable, to give the illusion of accomplishment, and to preserve the status quo.

You all can hate those evil corporations and their deep pockets all you want, if it makes you feel better. But the fact is that the individual has the real power - the vote. The real problem is not corporate money - it's that the voters are too lazy to organize and force their congressmen and senators to pay attention to them. In the absence of an educated constituency, the corporate lobbyists flourish.

Until we get close to 80-90% voter turnout, people will only have themselves to blame for the graft of their representatives. Why should they bother doing the people's business, when the people pay them no mind and forgive them every crime?

In the meantime, I will fight your desire to curtail my personal constitutional freedoms to the extent of my abilities.
posted by UncleFes at 2:33 PM on July 12, 2001

Thanks, mblandi. Replace "speech" with "pie", and you can appreciate the difference between the "right to free pie", and "the right not to be deprived of one's pie". And the domain of political speech in the modern era, whether you like it or not, is a pie divided between a very small number of interests.

Not that I should particularly care, given that I'm only indirectly afftected by a political system that, more than any, relies upon the media to keep the population ignorant, and to conduct the debate within an intellectual arena the size of a postage stamp. Bread and circuses, people.
posted by holgate at 2:40 PM on July 12, 2001

I support campaign finance reform, because I think things have gotten out of control. but fes is right about this:

You all can hate those evil corporations and their deep pockets all you want, if it makes you feel better. But the fact is that the individual has the real power - the vote. The real problem is not corporate money - it's that the voters are too lazy to organize and force their congressmen and senators to pay attention to them. In the absence of an educated constituency, the corporate lobbyists flourish

I don't agree that it's quite as cut-and-dried as he paints it, but I do think the american voter is, on average, extremely lazy. look at term limits: a simple attempt to be spoonfed.

what we don't want is a bill that will be overturned by the supreme court because it's badly written, thus ensuring that campaign finance reform never happens.
posted by rebeccablood at 2:54 PM on July 12, 2001

Fax and E-mail your Representative now

(Click on Action Alert)

Maybe they won't listen; hold their feet to the flames anyway.
posted by dr. zoidberg at 2:54 PM on July 12, 2001

jennak: Free TV time to candidates!!
UncleFes: Who'd watch?

Um... <raises hand>
posted by s.e.b. at 2:59 PM on July 12, 2001

The best way to restore individual power in U.S. politics is to close the loophole that allows corporations, unions and wealthy people unrestricted license to stuff the pockets of their favorite politicians by giving it to their parties.

More than $450 million of soft money was raised during the last election cycle, compared to $262 million in 1995-96. Both major parties are dependent on big-money donors like never before.

I don't think McCain-Feingold or Shays-Meehan are perfect by any stretch, but unregulated soft money is poison. Don't buy the laughable claim that money is speech -- that's just rhetoric paid for by the same folks that want to keep Washington under their thumb.
posted by rcade at 2:59 PM on July 12, 2001

BTW, I don't think that corruption and vote buying is what the First Amendment intended.

I'd like to see a total ban on soft money in any amount, from any source and a hard money limit of no more than $1 to any particular candidate.
posted by dr. zoidberg at 3:04 PM on July 12, 2001

Okay, rcade. If I were running in the next national election, and I wanted to capture the hearts, minds, and votes of the people, how would you propose that I go about doing that... without money?

Sure, you can stand on the street corner and talk. Theoretically, your reputation could pass through word-of-mouth and you could be elected in a grassroots landslide. But let's be realistic about it. There are only a handful of ways to capture the attention of the voter (who, by the admission of practically everybody here, is very fickle and lazy); radio, newspapers, and of course TV... they all require money (or a brilliant PR manager). Do you really think that you can practically win a campaign without money? Do you?

Here's what it comes down to: the American voter is short on time and attention as it is, they're not going to be active in the political process (and if they were, soft money would be a non-issue). But you CAN ask them to give money to organization's whose beliefs match their own, who will do the heavy lifting of researching and policing candidates, lobbying for issues they support, and helping to elect the best candidates. And you can't take away the voice of "corporate interests" without taking away the voice of the average American at the same time.

Free speech or campaign finance reform. It's your choice.
posted by gd779 at 3:07 PM on July 12, 2001

gd779: how much money does it take?
posted by rebeccablood at 3:09 PM on July 12, 2001

If the political will were there, any campaign finance reform legislation would be constructed in a way to ensure that rcade's disctinction between cash and speech were made clear. But how do you get legislators to come up with something that's in the best interest of the general public, rather than tailored to ensure their personal campaigns don't suffer next time round? Well, in Britain, the work was done by an unelected commission.

gd779: how much money does it take?

In the UK, £15 million for each of the main parties. Adjust accordingly.
posted by holgate at 3:18 PM on July 12, 2001

Free speech or campaign finance reform. It's your choice.

Ice cream or pancakes. It's your choice.
posted by holgate at 3:19 PM on July 12, 2001

gd779: how much money does it take?

Rebecca: How much money does it take to what? To get good democracy? Well, that's like asking "how much free speech does it take?" because every time you spend a dollar, you've gotten $1 worth of people to hear your voice.

Dr. Zoidberg has it wrong. Politicians don't vote the way that they do because they're being given money... they're given money because they have an established history of voting the way the PAC wants them to. Ask someone you know who works for a PAC sometime how they select the politicians they support. You don't see secret back-room meetings where politicians trade votes for dollars.

There's obviously a limit to that statement. There are probably many examples of slimy politicians who change their views with the changing winds of fortune. But consider the alternatives: a world where you can at least try to fight that corruption by contributing your own dollar (and if enough people do that...) vs. a world where ONLY the rich have a voice because nobody else can contribute to causes they believe in.

Look, the reason we don't just eliminate both hard AND soft donations is that without money, no politician would be heard and debate would suffer. Campaign Finance Reform tries to limit the rights of the "corporate lobby" without limiting the rights of the individual at the same time. That's impossible. And when you start limiting rights to reduce power, just remember that you'll run out of political power long before the rich will.
posted by gd779 at 3:25 PM on July 12, 2001

Oh, I should also point out one very good means to accomplish the end you seek: transparancy. Nothing gets rid of dirty business faster than good old-fashioned disclosure.
posted by gd779 at 3:27 PM on July 12, 2001

And the domain of political speech in the modern era, whether you like it or not, is a pie divided between a very small number of interests.

True, but it doesn't *have* to be that way. And you can't blame corporations for acting in their own interest. What you can do is exercise your franchise in such a way as to reinforce in your representative the concept that they work for you, not the corporations.

One point to consider - corporations are made up of citizens. So, in many cases, your corporations is lobbying on the behalf of its own members, no? If my company does well, I do well. If I do well, my family does well, on through to my neighborhood, my town, my state and my country.

But I'm arguing a moot point. I don't believe that the voters in this country give a tin shit for their rights or whether their government works for them or for big corporations. Hell, more than half of the registered voters don't even bother, and god knows how many have let their registrations expire. They'd rather bitch than fight, rather play the lottery than work, rather sue that admit that something as banal as simple bad luck even exists.

Laziness and narcissism is the curse of the American Republic. Eventually, it simply won't matter anymore - the rights we purport to hold dear will have been chipped away (since governments slide naturally toward tyranny) until we are cushioned slaves, beholden to a new aristocracy, safe and secure behind the wheels of our cars, newly equipped with a chip that automatically alerts the police, the auto company and our health insurance company when we slip over the speed limit. And freedom, as the founders we so roundly curse for living up to the tenets of their time imagined it, will be a dim, misunderstood memory.

Nothing gets rid of dirty business faster than good old-fashioned disclosure.

Yep. A simple solution to a simple problem. Fat chance.
posted by UncleFes at 3:29 PM on July 12, 2001

holgate: spending caps were ruled unconstitutional in 1976 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo.

Fes: Yeah, I misspoke. Transparency won't SOLVE all of our problems, but it will help quite a bit, I think.
posted by gd779 at 3:40 PM on July 12, 2001

Okay, rcade. If I were running in the next national election, and I wanted to capture the hearts, minds, and votes of the people, how would you propose that I go about doing that... without money?

That's a straw man: Neither Shays-Meehan nor McCain-Feingold leaves political candidates without money. Candidates will still be able to receive donations directly, subject to the existing disclosure rules and donation limits.
posted by rcade at 3:46 PM on July 12, 2001

If my company does well, I do well. If I do well, my family does well, on through to my neighborhood, my town, my state and my country.

In other words, "What's good for General Motors is good for America."

What if your corporation spends $15 million in soft money to elect politicians who look the other way when it pollutes my neighborhood, my town, my state and my country?
posted by rcade at 3:52 PM on July 12, 2001

At the very least I would like hard limits as to how much money can be contributed to parties and individuals for campaigns.

The Democrats have the trial lawyers and the unions pulling strings.

The Republicans have the tobacco, oil and gun lobbies pulling strings.

How about we have individual Americans pulling the strings when November comes around?

I'm not saying this legislation is ideal, but the current system stinks to high heaven.
posted by owillis at 3:56 PM on July 12, 2001

gd779: I must have missed something holgate said, or read something differently. But the spending caps ban in Buckley v. Valeo you refer to deals with individuals spending on their own campaigns. The idea here is, you can't be bought by yourself. The 1973 PAC limits have been upheld several times by now.

From the very Supreme Court opinion you're talking about: The contribution provisions, along with those covering disclosure, are appropriate legislative weapons against the reality or appearance of improper influence stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions, and the ceilings imposed accordingly serve the basic governmental interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process without directly impinging upon the rights of individual citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and discussion.
posted by raysmj at 4:01 PM on July 12, 2001

spending caps were ruled unconstitutional in 1976 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo.

Ah well. That's a pity. Allow me to be faintly amused, though, at the continued use of your constitution to defend the very practices that erode its powers. Because for all your commitment to individual freedom of speech, you're essentially arguing that the quiet voices of the many be drowned out, because it's not right to reduce the volume of those who scream and shout. It's a passive censorship that's all the more insidious because it comes draped in the banner of free expression.
posted by holgate at 4:01 PM on July 12, 2001

FWIW - I would wager that a goodly portion of the problem is attributable to corportate funding, and soft money - whatever the hell that is - which feeds the beer and circus that we know as television. Yes, corporations cannot vote directly, but due to a quirky decision that legal scholars are at a loss to explain, corporations are legal persons. Through a series of decisions the Supreme Court perverted the intent behind the 14th amendment to extend the federally guaranteed rights of a citizen to the legal fiction that is a corporation. Eliminate this silly twist of judicial opportunism and return corporations to their previous status. The framers and idealogues of the American Revolution were not rebelling only against English tyranny, but also against English corporations. For the first 70 years after the revolution, corporate charters were restrictive and closely monitored.

It is unfortunate that American society accepts without questioning that the only viable arena for public discourse (not merely political discourse) is the creature known as the television commercial. But it is the ontology of television that drives Americans to think that they have no time for politics, that politics is dry and confusing, and that perceived "character" is the fundamental means of judging politicians.

Eliminate the corporations' (and we're talking not-for-profit corporations as well) status as legal persons and, presto - no more First Amendment difficulties. Eliminate personal contributions to candidates individually and simultaneously loosen the absurd restrictions on third parties and, presto -we return to discussing positions and ideology instead of judging the televised image of individual politicians. Eliminate the winner-takes-all farce in the electoral college and, presto - we get closer to a true representative democracy. Eliminate political commercials and presto - Americans are forced to sink or swim. Either they renew their commitment to monitoring their government or they sublimate completely and joyfully partake of their soma. This pussy-footing around is only dragging out the end game, and if nothing changes the American public will undoubtedly choose the second of the two alternatives. Choosing to think that they can understand the issues and positions of the candidates via a flurry of thirty second productions designed not to communicate, but to disinform, distract, and distance the public from the electoral process.

Oh, and yes, people need to wake the fuck up.

Finally - I'm not linking to my assertions, but I would point anyone who is interested to see generally - Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death, Huxley's Brave New World, and Sperber's Beer and Circus. All three texts can be found at your local library, or ordered from, well you know where - no need to advertise for them.
posted by BoyWithFez at 4:24 PM on July 12, 2001

That's a straw man: Neither Shays-Meehan nor McCain-Feingold leaves political candidates without money.

The point that I'm trying to establish is that money is a necessary precursor to free speech at the national level. Without it, you can't get your voice heard (that's kind of the point of campaign finance reform, after all). Can we agree on that much?

If we do agree that money is a requirement for effective nation-wide speech, then don't you think it should be protected as strongly as free speech itself? If I give you the right to vote, but put the only voting booth in a locked vault to which I have the only key, what good is your right?
posted by gd779 at 4:37 PM on July 12, 2001

I think we can agree that the average American voter isn't currently extensively involved in politics right now, and that's not likely to significantly change in the near future. Right?

Well, let's accept that and try to balance the corporate lobby by giving the people the most voice they can. What should the people be doing? Well, they need to find candidates that match their value systems. They need to make sure that these politicians are competent, and make good policy. They need to police these politicians on a daily basis for abuse and misconduct. But they're not doing any of that. At best, they mindlessly repeat whatever the local TV news anchor says.

Instead of asking each individual American go through all of that work, why don't we let somebody else do it for them? Currently, all they have to do is decide their position on an issue, then give money to the appropriate PAC. The PAC then does all of the work of policing politicians, helping to shape good policy, and sorting the good politicians from the bad ones. Yes, the people may choose poorly when deciding which PAC to contribute too. But, for better or worse, that's their right in a Democracy.
posted by gd779 at 4:38 PM on July 12, 2001

gd779: Who's saying that's not true? (Maybe someone did, but . . . ) The problem is unlimited PAC soft money donations to parties. There are more problems involved than just parties, though -- too many Congressmen get good donations from the communications industry (including McCain) to want to do something about the loopholes in campaign advertising laws. (It's supposed to be a discount rate, but TV ad people can say, "Well, you're ad might not get on, so you'll want to pay this much higher rate." This from people who've won hard-to-get licenses for public airwaves.) And if you lessen the role of parties, you're hurting the democratic process.

That said, I'm with other, more moderate people on this issue - limit soft moneuy. PAC limits were held up, contrary to any position taken here earlier, in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 and by the Supreme Court in Shrink v. Missouri in 2000. There was an alternative bill put forward by a bipartisan group that was perfectly Constitutional. There were several alternatives, actually, to McCain-Feingold. That nothing has been done is loathsome, and reflects as badly on Congress as a whole as any one member or group of those sharing similar views.
posted by raysmj at 5:39 PM on July 12, 2001

That's actually an interesting starting point, gd779, and would work well if it could be accompanied by the breaking of the two-party system in the US: turn PACs into parties. Because what you're describing is essentially a multi-party politic, underpinned by a proportionate voting system. And instead of the sham of "American Families for Bush" or "Concerned Environmentalists for Gore", you'd have an more up-front debate of interests, simply because they'd be resolved in the first instance by the electorate, rather than by the lobbies. Not entirely, of course, since all coalition governance involves a degree of horse-trading in the corridors of power, but if you look at the party system in Germany, or even the two umbrella groups in Italy, there's a wider political spectrum on public display, so you get to see internal debates as an electoral issue.

Imagine, for instance, if the Republicans and Democrats were not simply caucuses, but explicitly coalitions, like the "House of Freedoms" and "Olive Tree" in Italy: so you'd get everything from the religious right, the libertarian right, the "states' rights" right and the "compassionate" right as identifiable mini-parties, and the same kind of spectrum on the left, including the Greens and the socialists. At least then, when you cast your vote, you can feel as if your views are being represented, and being spoken for, in a more accurate fashion than tossing it into the vat with one of the major parties.

How does this address the issue of campaign finance? Well, by pluralising the public debate, it goes some way towards the constitutional aim to "divide and conquer" in a positive manner, by ensuring that the competing desires of minorities are both balanced and expressed. As James Madison famously put it:

In a Republican Govt. the Majority if united have always an opportunity. The only remedy is to enlarge the sphere, & thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests & parties, that in the 1st. place a majority will not be likely at the same moment to have a common interest separate from that of the whole or of the minority; and in the 2d. place, that in case they shd. have such an interest, they may not be apt to unite in the pursuit of it.

The point being that foregrounding factions -- "interests & parties" -- attacks at some of the murkiness that plagues the current system, where it's two monolithic entities in which interests and funding are subsumed.

The problem: it works better for legislative elections, in a parliamentary system, than for the presidential model. But that didn't stop Berlusconi being the titular head of the "House of Freedoms", by being leader of the main party. Nor does it diminish the authority of Gerhard Schröder as German Chancellor, even though his red-green coalition relies on the contribution of Joschka Fischer, the Foreign Secretary and leader of the Greens.
posted by holgate at 5:50 PM on July 12, 2001

Correction: The 2000 case I referred to earlier is Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Govt. PAC. The other important recent Supreme Court case dealing with PAC limits (specifically, limits to party spending in Congressional races - upheld) is FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, from late June 2001.
posted by raysmj at 8:26 PM on July 12, 2001

If we do agree that money is a requirement for effective nation-wide speech, then don't you think it should be protected as strongly as free speech itself?

If you feel that way, start an effort to amend the Constitution. The one we have now doesn't treat money like speech, and I'm thankful for it.
posted by rcade at 6:52 AM on July 13, 2001

And yet again you miss my point. There is no "right to free speech" in the first amendment. It's a right "not to have speech restricted". The point being that you have to possess something in the first place, in order to have it protected from being taken away.

I didn't miss your point, I disagree with your premise. You have equated 'free speech' or simply 'speech' with 'media access' when they are not the same thing. 'Free speech', and the guarantee of it, is vastly more comprehensive than merely who is using the broadcast airwaves, for example.
posted by ljromanoff at 8:08 AM on July 13, 2001

And opponents of campaign reform equate "speech" with "funding", as rcade pointed out.

As I said, in practical terms, the first amendment guarantees a climate of passive censorship. But that's your country's problem, not mine.
posted by holgate at 9:44 AM on July 13, 2001

And opponents of campaign reform equate "speech" with "funding", as rcade pointed out.

Fine, so you and they are both wrong.
posted by ljromanoff at 10:53 AM on July 13, 2001

Really, ljr, do you have to work on being so offensive, or does it just come naturally?
posted by holgate at 11:11 AM on July 13, 2001

Really, ljr, do you have to work on being so offensive, or does it just come naturally?

I don't know. How is it so easy for you to be consistently wrong on every issue?
posted by ljromanoff at 11:28 AM on July 13, 2001

I wouldn't know. Please share your experience, out of curiosity.

Back to matters of substance. The American poltical system is broken. If the First Amendment is used to preserve its brokenness, then it becomes part of the problem. But, as I suggested in my response to gd779, a way out of the mess isn't to restrict parties, but to encourage political pluralism: a cultivation of factions that comes with the endorsment of the people who put together the constitution in the first place.

Want to offer an alternative set of ideas, ljr? Or is everything just fine in your libertarian enclave?
posted by holgate at 11:49 AM on July 13, 2001

Want to offer an alternative set of ideas, ljr? Or is everything just fine in your libertarian enclave?

If you had actually read this thread rather than using it once again as an opportunity to make snide remarks, you would note that I already pointed out what I consider to be specific significant errors in this piece of legislation.

You will see that I never made the money=speech argument that troubles you so.

In any event, I think that full disclosure of all funds received by a campaign as a matter of public electoral policy would be a more worthwhile direction than more byzantine financing regulations.
posted by ljromanoff at 12:26 PM on July 13, 2001

That's all I was after: a single positive contribution. Thank you.
posted by holgate at 1:33 PM on July 13, 2001

That's all I was after: a single positive contribution. Thank you.

Well, I'm so thrilled you approve. You could have read one posted at 12:33 PST yesterday if you had wanted to.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:55 PM on July 13, 2001