Help
This topic is locked
[quote author=Brickhuase link=topic=1362.msg6781#msg6781 date=1201180770]
[quote]how does campaigning relate to free speech?[/quote]
Seriously? How does campaigning relate to free speech? Are we that clueless in this country today to the original intent of the 1st Amendment? It was not written and adopted so that we could enjoy endless amounts of porn on the Internet. It was always understood by our founders as a tool to guarantee freedom of political speech. What is a campaign of not political speech?
[quote]The major reasoning behind it is to limit campaign expenses giving more parties the ability to successfully campaign, give the little guy a chance kind of deal. The person with the most money is not necessarily the best leader.
honestly, don't start this i could take a million shots at american policy across a wide array of subjects, our laws are no different then most of the modern world and come primarily from europe.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, none of this is true. Go ahead and take a million shots at American policy across array of subjects, I won't shy away. But campaign finance reform actually shuts people out and it truly amazes me that people in the US are not extremely suspicious of politicians when they all hold hands on legislation like this. When Dems and Repubs come together in agreement 99.9% it is because it benefits them all in some way. The benefit here is that elected officials find it much easier to keep their jobs when campaign finance laws are on the book. Less money in a race in general keeps more people out. And the big players in a US campaign continue to generate their millions regardless. The official reasons for campaign finance reform laws is a myth.
Propaganda via Nickellodeon now?
#22
Daksuo 
- Newbie
-
- Group: Registered Guests
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 17-February 07
Posted 24 January 2008 - 10:14 AM
Quote
It was always understood by our founders as a tool to guarantee freedom of political speech. What is a campaign of not political speech?
Unfortunately, none of this is true. Go ahead and take a million shots at American policy across array of subjects, I won't shy away. But campaign finance reform actually shuts people out and it truly amazes me that people in the US are not extremely suspicious of politicians when they all hold hands on legislation like this. When Dems and Repubs come together in agreement 99.9% it is because it benefits them all in some way. The benefit here is that elected officials find it much easier to keep their jobs when campaign finance laws are on the book. Less money in a race in general keeps more people out. And the big players in a US campaign continue to generate their millions regardless. The official reasons for campaign finance reform laws is a myth.
Unfortunately, none of this is true. Go ahead and take a million shots at American policy across array of subjects, I won't shy away. But campaign finance reform actually shuts people out and it truly amazes me that people in the US are not extremely suspicious of politicians when they all hold hands on legislation like this. When Dems and Repubs come together in agreement 99.9% it is because it benefits them all in some way. The benefit here is that elected officials find it much easier to keep their jobs when campaign finance laws are on the book. Less money in a race in general keeps more people out. And the big players in a US campaign continue to generate their millions regardless. The official reasons for campaign finance reform laws is a myth.
Money is not speech.
Speech is not free if only the wealthy have it.
Warren Buffet could be prohibited by name from ever giving a penny to anyone except via inheritance, and his family prohibited from ever holding office; his speech wouldn't be impeded - he's Warren Buffet. If he wanted to take five minutes of time at Wall Street to discuss his thoughts on lunch, he can. I can't. Free speech in the corner of an alley that no one hears is not free speech.
As for keeping candidates out of the race, it seems they're quite capable of doing that regardless of individual wealth - how many people think Guiliani is doing better then Ron Paul? From all news coverage, he is - "The major contenders, A, B, C, and Guliani..." he's always fourth in lists (or first/second, if he's the favored child of the speaker) despite routinely placing 6th to Ron Paul's 4th. Yet debates - which if nothing else serve as an anointing of the candidates running - are excluding Ron Paul but not Guiliani.
But let's take all the hay out of this straw man right now - if you don't have access to $1bn by 2012, you won't be able to run for office. I can't see why Congress wouldn't rally behind a fiscal cap - to raise $1bn they've got to sell themselves out to so many interests it must be practically impossible to keep them straight. A more reasonable number, like $10m, and you've got maybe 3-4 interests with your name in their pocket... far more manageable. And hey, Ron Paul could be truly indepenedent.
Or, the people's speech might be free.
Poor, poor corporations and their deafening speech limited. Viva Republica! You know, that thing where the rights of the poor, the weak, the oppressed masses are sacred.
#23 Guest_Madcoediseas_*
Posted 24 January 2008 - 11:53 AM
Quote
Quote
It was always understood by our founders as a tool to guarantee freedom of political speech. What is a campaign of not political speech?
Unfortunately, none of this is true. Go ahead and take a million shots at American policy across array of subjects, I won't shy away. But campaign finance reform actually shuts people out and it truly amazes me that people in the US are not extremely suspicious of politicians when they all hold hands on legislation like this. When Dems and Repubs come together in agreement 99.9% it is because it benefits them all in some way. The benefit here is that elected officials find it much easier to keep their jobs when campaign finance laws are on the book. Less money in a race in general keeps more people out. And the big players in a US campaign continue to generate their millions regardless. The official reasons for campaign finance reform laws is a myth.
Unfortunately, none of this is true. Go ahead and take a million shots at American policy across array of subjects, I won't shy away. But campaign finance reform actually shuts people out and it truly amazes me that people in the US are not extremely suspicious of politicians when they all hold hands on legislation like this. When Dems and Repubs come together in agreement 99.9% it is because it benefits them all in some way. The benefit here is that elected officials find it much easier to keep their jobs when campaign finance laws are on the book. Less money in a race in general keeps more people out. And the big players in a US campaign continue to generate their millions regardless. The official reasons for campaign finance reform laws is a myth.
Money is not speech.
Speech is not free if only the wealthy have it.
Warren Buffet could be prohibited by name from ever giving a penny to anyone except via inheritance, and his family prohibited from ever holding office; his speech wouldn't be impeded - he's Warren Buffet. If he wanted to take five minutes of time at Wall Street to discuss his thoughts on lunch, he can. I can't. Free speech in the corner of an alley that no one hears is not free speech.
As for keeping candidates out of the race, it seems they're quite capable of doing that regardless of individual wealth - how many people think Guiliani is doing better then Ron Paul? From all news coverage, he is - "The major contenders, A, B, C, and Guliani..." he's always fourth in lists (or first/second, if he's the favored child of the speaker) despite routinely placing 6th to Ron Paul's 4th. Yet debates - which if nothing else serve as an anointing of the candidates running - are excluding Ron Paul but not Guiliani.
But let's take all the hay out of this straw man right now - if you don't have access to $1bn by 2012, you won't be able to run for office. I can't see why Congress wouldn't rally behind a fiscal cap - to raise $1bn they've got to sell themselves out to so many interests it must be practically impossible to keep them straight. A more reasonable number, like $10m, and you've got maybe 3-4 interests with your name in their pocket... far more manageable. And hey, Ron Paul could be truly indepenedent.
Or, the people's speech might be free.
Poor, poor corporations and their deafening speech limited. Viva Republica! You know, that thing where the rights of the poor, the weak, the oppressed masses are sacred.
Unfortunately you have been duped. While money is not speech, denying access to money does deny free speech. Incumbency rates have sky rocketed since the early 70s when we first started enacting campaign finance reform. Continuing to claim that all these laws do is help the little guy is a fallacy of monstrous proportions. But not only do these laws keep money out of the little guys hands, they work to prevent knowledge on candidates from being disseminated. Of course I fail to understand your dig at any person or entity being denied access to speech. Am I to understand you only respect the right of free speech for those who you respect?
#25 Guest_Madcoediseas_*
Posted 24 January 2008 - 01:05 PM
Quote
How is the dissemination of knowledge on the candidates being stopped by campaign finance reform?
Am I missing something here?
Am I missing something here?
http://www.capmag.co...cle.asp?ID=1495
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/SandyFr...our_free_speech
#26
Len
- Member
-
- Group: Root Admin
- Posts: 1,156
- Joined: 04-January 08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Bloomington, IN
Posted 24 January 2008 - 01:09 PM
The only viable third party movements insurrections against the established order in recent memory have been due to money.
Ross Perot
Howard Dean
Ron Paul
Hell, you can even include Barak Obama here. He was nobody in the race until he racked up tons of money near the beginning of the Primary season. Until then, it was a contest between Hillary and John Edwards.
As much as this die hard liberal hates the thought of money in politics, the fact is that the only way to dislodge incumbents is to get your message out to the public, and the only way to do that is with money, either your own or lots of other people's. The numbers pretty much show that unless an incumbent is challenged by someone with tons of money, or they get caught on film sleeping with an male underage intern, they will keep their seat.
Ross Perot
Howard Dean
Ron Paul
Hell, you can even include Barak Obama here. He was nobody in the race until he racked up tons of money near the beginning of the Primary season. Until then, it was a contest between Hillary and John Edwards.
As much as this die hard liberal hates the thought of money in politics, the fact is that the only way to dislodge incumbents is to get your message out to the public, and the only way to do that is with money, either your own or lots of other people's. The numbers pretty much show that unless an incumbent is challenged by someone with tons of money, or they get caught on film sleeping with an male underage intern, they will keep their seat.
That which doesn't kill you gets to try again later.
#27 Guest_Brickhuase_*
Posted 24 January 2008 - 01:12 PM
Quote
Unfortunately you have been duped. While money is not speech, denying access to money does deny free speech. Incumbency rates have sky rocketed since the early 70s when we first started enacting campaign finance reform. Continuing to claim that all these laws do is help the little guy is a fallacy of monstrous proportions. But not only do these laws keep money out of the little guys hands, they work to prevent knowledge on candidates from being disseminated. Of course I fail to understand your dig at any person or entity being denied access to speech. Am I to understand you only respect the right of free speech for those who you respect?
I'm still not seeing your relation betwen a campaign and free speech laws. We are one of the leaders for human rights advocacy within the U.N. though our view because of our size of our country is not generaly broadcast to the masses. The limiting factor on free speech within canada is specificaly related to hate crimes or hate towards one group of people. I can not hold a kkk demonstration putting down the none white people of my country without expecting to be shut down promptly. There is a reason for this canada is a very multi-cultural and diverse country, and we imbrace this fact. I don't know if you are one of the few americans that still see canada as a pink so to speak country, but i would say you have a very skewed opinion of our culture. I'm not saying its right that we dont allow people to advocate hate crimes or mass genocide but hey, i don't lose any sleep over it.
Limiting the time of campaign has nothing to do with limiting free speech, candidates can say whatever they want and destroy all their credibility by saying one of the few things we dont deem appropriate. I personaly think it is better that all candidates are held to a level playing field, but that is my personal opinion. OUR ELECTORAL SYSTEM IS DIFFERENT, OUR GOVERNING STRUCTURE IS DIFFERENT, it works well for us, the british, new zealand, australia and other nations that were once part of the empire. So i guess you think we are all wrong and you are right? Please ...
sorry if you cant handle the difference in culture, i would recomend you learn to deal with it if you intend to do anything with your life involving business, especially if you ever have dealing with countries such as the United Arab Emirates. I can take the canadian slights and stereotypical nuances that come from not being american, but dont insult my countries values.
My comment was simple and non derogatory stating the difference between cultures. I'm sure tehre are many other candians in the guild that would find your post insulting.
#28 Guest_Avaren_*
Posted 24 January 2008 - 01:32 PM
I'm too confused now, I think people are mixed up about when someone is talking about the US and then talking about Canada or responding to the wrong person. I dont know much about Canada so maybe I'm just missing the references when they come up.
Also I hope Republicans dont represent Big Government, although it does sadly start to seem that way instead of being conservatives and aim for small government like they are supposed to be for.
And the Captain Planet I remember always had a evil corporation behind the pollution or deforestation or whatever the current topic of the day was. Sure it promoted short commericals of cleaing up trash or air individually but the basic plot of the shows was to take down the polluting corporation. Just like today, dems want you to drive a prius and change the lightbulbs in your house to clean up individually and take down "big oil" at the same time.
Yes the smurfs are communists.
Also I hope Republicans dont represent Big Government, although it does sadly start to seem that way instead of being conservatives and aim for small government like they are supposed to be for.
And the Captain Planet I remember always had a evil corporation behind the pollution or deforestation or whatever the current topic of the day was. Sure it promoted short commericals of cleaing up trash or air individually but the basic plot of the shows was to take down the polluting corporation. Just like today, dems want you to drive a prius and change the lightbulbs in your house to clean up individually and take down "big oil" at the same time.
Yes the smurfs are communists.
#29 Guest_Madcoediseas_*
Posted 24 January 2008 - 01:36 PM
Quote
Quote
Unfortunately you have been duped. While money is not speech, denying access to money does deny free speech. Incumbency rates have sky rocketed since the early 70s when we first started enacting campaign finance reform. Continuing to claim that all these laws do is help the little guy is a fallacy of monstrous proportions. But not only do these laws keep money out of the little guys hands, they work to prevent knowledge on candidates from being disseminated. Of course I fail to understand your dig at any person or entity being denied access to speech. Am I to understand you only respect the right of free speech for those who you respect?
I'm still not seeing your relation betwen a campaign and free speech laws. We are one of the leaders for human rights advocacy within the U.N. though our view because of our size of our country is not generaly broadcast to the masses. The limiting factor on free speech within canada is specificaly related to hate crimes or hate towards one group of people. I can not hold a kkk demonstration putting down the none white people of my country without expecting to be shut down promptly. There is a reason for this canada is a very multi-cultural and diverse country, and we imbrace this fact. I don't know if you are one of the few americans that still see canada as a pink so to speak country, but i would say you have a very skewed opinion of our culture. I'm not saying its right that we dont allow people to advocate hate crimes or mass genocide but hey, i don't lose any sleep over it.
Limiting the time of campaign has nothing to do with limiting free speech, candidates can say whatever they want and destroy all their credibility by saying one of the few things we dont deem appropriate. I personaly think it is better that all candidates are held to a level playing field, but that is my personal opinion. OUR ELECTORAL SYSTEM IS DIFFERENT, OUR GOVERNING STRUCTURE IS DIFFERENT, it works well for us, the british, new zealand, australia and other nations that were once part of the empire. So i guess you think we are all wrong and you are right? Please ...
sorry if you cant handle the difference in culture, i would recomend you learn to deal with it if you intend to do anything with your life involving business, especially if you ever have dealing with countries such as the United Arab Emirates. I can take the canadian slights and stereotypical nuances that come from not being american, but dont insult my countries values.
My comment was simple and non derogatory stating the difference between cultures. I'm sure tehre are many other candians in the guild that would find your post insulting.
If you don't understand the clear message in the articles I posted I don't know what else to say. I can imagine that someone might disagree with Thomas Sowell's view on campaign finance reform and free speech, but he is pretty clear about how he views the relationship and I happen to agree with him. And as far as the restrictions that exist in Canada on free speech I find them appalling. You don't fight hateful speech with speech restrictions, you fight it with more free speech. You don't currently disagree with these laws that exist in Canada because they have no bearing on you. Some day they will though. Restricting any speech is an invitation to restrict all speech.
#30 Guest_Madcoediseas_*
Posted 24 January 2008 - 01:38 PM
Quote
I'm too confused now, I think people are mixed up about when someone is talking about the US and then talking about Canada or responding to the wrong person. I dont know much about Canada so maybe I'm just missing the references when they come up.
Also I hope Republicans dont represent Big Government, although it does sadly start to seem that way instead of being conservatives and aim for small government like they are supposed to be for.
Also I hope Republicans dont represent Big Government, although it does sadly start to seem that way instead of being conservatives and aim for small government like they are supposed to be for.
Many Republicans are not for small government.
#31 Guest_Avaren_*
Posted 24 January 2008 - 02:01 PM
Quote
Many Republicans are not for small government.
I'm saying its sad that the conservative ideals of small government arent as wide spread anymore with Republicans and that it is possible to say Republicans are for big government.
More and more people just think the government should do everything - mortgage bailout, healthcare, education, regulate your thermostat, tell auto makers how many mpg their cars must get.
Personal responsibility is gone as more and more people say, "How can I vote to take money away from successful, high achievers and redirect it to me because I'm lazy but I'm entitled to a certain standard of life anyways." More votes for democrats, great...
Edit: Not saying all democrats think that way but I dont think people can really argue that the majority of people that do think that way, will vote for a democrat as they usually play the class warfare game and are "friends" to the "poor."
#32 Guest_Brickhuase_*
Posted 24 January 2008 - 02:39 PM
I wholly disagree with most of what you have said, and i also disagree with your biased sources. I also don't believe you are qualified to say the rest of the world is wrong. I'm pretty sure i'm never going to want to start a lynch mob against some minority, so you are probably right, not being able to make a kill that minority club is never going to have an effect on me, the law in effect sums to http://en.wikipedia...._responsibility .
#33 Guest_Madcoediseas_*
Posted 24 January 2008 - 03:12 PM
Quote
I wholly disagree with most of what you have said, and i also disagree with your biased sources. I also don't believe you are qualified to say the rest of the world is wrong. I'm pretty sure i'm never going to want to start a lynch mob against some minority, so you are probably right, not being able to make a kill that minority club is never going to have an effect on me, the law in effect sums to http://en.wikipedia...._responsibility .
Of course you think my sources are biased, you disagree with them. But that does not male a point against them, that is a cop out. Furthermore, I am qualified to say anything I like because I live in a country that actually still respects free speech.
#36 Guest_Brickhuase_*
Posted 24 January 2008 - 05:55 PM
Something being biased means that it is tilted to one sides views, that totaly makes a point against them.
I think you have just totaly missed the boat, or maybe someone threw you off it. Anyways i'm done arguing with you anyone who thinks that we dont respect free speach, is just totaly wrong. Jugglers right this could spin out of control right now but it wont.
Quote
I am qualified to say anything I like because I live in a country that actually still respects free speech.
I think you have just totaly missed the boat, or maybe someone threw you off it. Anyways i'm done arguing with you anyone who thinks that we dont respect free speach, is just totaly wrong. Jugglers right this could spin out of control right now but it wont.
#37
Daksuo
- Newbie
-
- Group: Registered Guests
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 17-February 07
Posted 24 January 2008 - 07:07 PM
I am abusing my mod privilages and posting to a locked thread. I'm using the I-was-at-work-and-deserve-a-fair-turn-because-I-say-so tyrant clause.
Correlation is not causation. Gosh, what could have made for a monsterous change in political landscape around the 70's? Nothing, obviously, besides campaign finance reform law.
I have no idea where this garbage about free speech and my respect come from; I think the related quote is something like - "There are no stupid questions, just a lot of inquisitive idiots," to go along with Voltaire's quote - "I might spend a lifetime shouting at the top of my lungs disagreeing with everything you say, but I shall lay down my life to defend your right to speak."
Voltaire didn't say a word about playing host to such people, though.
Additionally, your links are to a thinly veiled agenda group, who will selectively say anything that furthers their agenda, rather then actually considering the issue impartially.
Moving on to Len's post... I'm not against campaign finance. I'm for limits to finance. If every candidate can only spend so much, then Ron Paul Jr. isn't going to need a whole extra digit of funds just to play politics. Incumbancy will remain an issue ("As long as they don't catch him with a dead girl or a live boy..."), but pretty much every political so-and-so drums the hammer about campaign funds. Sure, they can play tight, get good returns, eccet, but anything other then an astronomically different contest will favor the $1bn campaign over the $1m campaign. Incumbancy favors incumbants additionally because they're expected to win, so they raise more funds, making it easier to win. If backing a long shot is not a fiscal nightmare, more longshots will be backed (Econ 101 - presuming there's a payoff, which is implicit).
I'm with Av for small government, although there's definately a greater need then most small government espousers realize - this is a Republic. Defined by its Founders as having to specifically set in motion Government against the masses for the few.
As for the bias of sources, it used to be a huge deal in the 17th century, with ... I can't remember, but he's a famous encyclopedian, who published the last major, thorough, pre-modern encyclopedia (in eras as defined specific to the field). Anyway, before then, it was considered flavor for an author to write a specifically viewpointed take on everything - this implicitly giving the reader a greater understanding of the subject as the learned scholar's flavoring the knowledge. This fell out of favor (in theory) shortly thereafter, where learned gentlemen came to the conclusion that the Establishment - whether it's grandpa or the Royal Acadame deu Scientifique - tends to be wrong, and that a critical re-examination ex nil (that's from nothing) may wend towards a new, more accurate estimation.
However, since we're all dumb as @#$#, we should just read, uncritically, what learned gents Madcowdiseas links us and believe it all, hook line and conclusion, despite the blaring lack of actual empiric modeling, and text that couldn't be published in a community college's academic journal. Alternatively, the dogfood principle applies here.
Edit - And Av, just to point out, my contrast between the Republicans and Democrats didn't put either in a better light :P Wishing a leopard had no spots does not make it so, even if we name it Princess and hug it.
Quote
Unfortunately you have been duped. While money is not speech, denying access to money does deny free speech. Incumbency rates have sky rocketed since the early 70s when we first started enacting campaign finance reform. Continuing to claim that all these laws do is help the little guy is a fallacy of monstrous proportions. But not only do these laws keep money out of the little guys hands, they work to prevent knowledge on candidates from being disseminated. Of course I fail to understand your dig at any person or entity being denied access to speech. Am I to understand you only respect the right of free speech for those who you respect?
Correlation is not causation. Gosh, what could have made for a monsterous change in political landscape around the 70's? Nothing, obviously, besides campaign finance reform law.
I have no idea where this garbage about free speech and my respect come from; I think the related quote is something like - "There are no stupid questions, just a lot of inquisitive idiots," to go along with Voltaire's quote - "I might spend a lifetime shouting at the top of my lungs disagreeing with everything you say, but I shall lay down my life to defend your right to speak."
Voltaire didn't say a word about playing host to such people, though.
Additionally, your links are to a thinly veiled agenda group, who will selectively say anything that furthers their agenda, rather then actually considering the issue impartially.
Moving on to Len's post... I'm not against campaign finance. I'm for limits to finance. If every candidate can only spend so much, then Ron Paul Jr. isn't going to need a whole extra digit of funds just to play politics. Incumbancy will remain an issue ("As long as they don't catch him with a dead girl or a live boy..."), but pretty much every political so-and-so drums the hammer about campaign funds. Sure, they can play tight, get good returns, eccet, but anything other then an astronomically different contest will favor the $1bn campaign over the $1m campaign. Incumbancy favors incumbants additionally because they're expected to win, so they raise more funds, making it easier to win. If backing a long shot is not a fiscal nightmare, more longshots will be backed (Econ 101 - presuming there's a payoff, which is implicit).
I'm with Av for small government, although there's definately a greater need then most small government espousers realize - this is a Republic. Defined by its Founders as having to specifically set in motion Government against the masses for the few.
As for the bias of sources, it used to be a huge deal in the 17th century, with ... I can't remember, but he's a famous encyclopedian, who published the last major, thorough, pre-modern encyclopedia (in eras as defined specific to the field). Anyway, before then, it was considered flavor for an author to write a specifically viewpointed take on everything - this implicitly giving the reader a greater understanding of the subject as the learned scholar's flavoring the knowledge. This fell out of favor (in theory) shortly thereafter, where learned gentlemen came to the conclusion that the Establishment - whether it's grandpa or the Royal Acadame deu Scientifique - tends to be wrong, and that a critical re-examination ex nil (that's from nothing) may wend towards a new, more accurate estimation.
However, since we're all dumb as @#$#, we should just read, uncritically, what learned gents Madcowdiseas links us and believe it all, hook line and conclusion, despite the blaring lack of actual empiric modeling, and text that couldn't be published in a community college's academic journal. Alternatively, the dogfood principle applies here.
Edit - And Av, just to point out, my contrast between the Republicans and Democrats didn't put either in a better light :P Wishing a leopard had no spots does not make it so, even if we name it Princess and hug it.
