Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Astroturf Soon To Be Illegal
Apparently, congressional Democrats are worried about polls calling them do-nothings. So they've decided to do something: Restrict political speech.
The amendment, pushed by Rep. Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, would require groups that organize such grassroots campaigns to register as "lobbyists" and file detailed quarterly reports on their donors and activities. The law would apply to any group that took in at least $100,000 in any given quarter for "paid communications campaigns" aimed at mobilizing the public....
But the First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for redress of grievances." The Supreme Court twice ruled in the 1950s that grassroots communication isn't "lobbying activity," and is fully protected by the First Amendment....The idea goes too far even for Sen. John McCain, who voted to strip a similar provision from a Senate lobbying reform bill last January.
Just a quick example of the kind of astroturf--"fake" grassroots--campaigns that would be covered under the law:
Oprah Winfrey operates a website dedicated to urging people to contact Congress to demand intervention in Darfur. If her Web master took in over $100,000 in revenue from Ms. Winfrey and similar clients in a single quarter, he might be forced to make disclosures under the law.
Thank God Congress is keeping us safe from the poisonous influence of money on politics. Sheesh.
More on congressional restrictions on political speech here and here.
|5.14.07 @ 12:00PM|#
It's pretty unclear how this restricts political speech. What ideas are being suppressed?
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 12:06PM|#
...would require groups that organize such grassroots
campaigns to register as "lobbyists" and file detailed quarterly
reports on their donors and activities.
So, who is going to pay for the creation of all this
paperwork?
Why does the government need to know this information?
|5.14.07 @ 12:07PM|#
Aren't these "anti-lobbying" laws just a facade for the party in power to abridge the activities of opposing groups? I know the GOP has George Soros in its sights, and the Dems have a whole roster of opposing lobbyists they'd like to put down.
Fluffy|5.14.07 @ 12:13PM|#
Dan -
If I engage in political activity without filling out the right
forms, I am subject to criminal penalties.
fyodor|5.14.07 @ 12:17PM|#
What ideas are being suppressed?
Any who adherents might utilize money to express. Remember, Dan T,
the 1st Amendment protects the expression of
ideas.
Christopher Monnier|5.14.07 @ 12:18PM|#
> Why does the government need to know this
information?
They [obviously] don't. But it's not about what information the
government needs...it's about what information the public (via such
groups) doesn't need. Making it that much more onerous for an
activist group like DownsizeDC to sustain itself will
prevent the information such groups have to offer us from reaching
us.
Thank God we have the brave men and women of Congress to shelter us
from all this information about how good or bad of a job they're
doing. They know better than us about which information we should
see.
|5.14.07 @ 12:18PM|#
"So, who is going to pay for the creation of all this
paperwork?"
The people providing more than $100,000 in funding.
"Why does the government need to know this information?"
So it can be made public, and the voters can know that "Little Old
Ladies Against Drunk Driving," who keep buy ads against a
referendum to allow grocery stores to sell beer, is actually a
group of liquor store owners seeking to protect their monopoly.
Fluffy|5.14.07 @ 12:22PM|#
I can't find the part in the 1st Amendment where it says that to
be eligible to be part of the speech that can't be abridged or the
assembly that can't be abridged, I have to provide details on all
my speech and all my assembly for my neighbor to review.
The bottom line is that such a requirement would mean that if I and
my associates got together and engaged in political speech and then
went home and took no further action, we could be subject to arrest
and to criminal penalties. Period.
Dave W.|5.14.07 @ 12:23PM|#
So it can be made public, and the voters can know that
"Little Old Ladies Against Drunk Driving," who keep buy ads against
a referendum to allow grocery stores to sell beer, is actually a
group of liquor store owners seeking to protect their
monopoly.
But wouldn't this law be bad for reason and HnR,
joe. It seems like people might focus on who is contributing to
Reason rather than what the Reason authors, like
Katherine Mangu-Ward, are saying in substance. That would not be in
the best interests of Reason's authors, or their
contributors. It might even drive down contributions to
Reason that would otherwise be made.
|5.14.07 @ 12:23PM|#
"The bottom line is that such a requirement would mean that if I
and my associates got together and engaged in political speech and
then went home and took no further action, we could be subject to
arrest and to criminal penalties."
No, Fluffy, it doesn't. You'd have to also have to spend
$100,000.
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 12:25PM|#
joe,
The people providing more than $100,000 in funding.
Great. More money wasted.
So it can be made public...
And what if I don't want my spending habits to be made
public?
As for the publication of such information government disclosure
laws aren't necessary for those to become public knowledge. That is
what the press is for (in part).
Fluffy|5.14.07 @ 12:26PM|#
Joe -
So if 500 of us got together in Vegas and listened to political
speeches, we'd break the law.
That directly criminalizes both assembly and speech.
|5.14.07 @ 12:27PM|#
Better that advocacy groups spend their resources feeding a bureaucracy, rather than actually, you know, advocating, eh, joe?
|5.14.07 @ 12:27PM|#
"I can't find the part in the 1st Amendment where it says that
to be eligible to be part of the speech that can't be abridged or
the assembly that can't be abridged, I have to provide details on
all my speech and all my assembly for my neighbor to review."
I can't find the part that limits my ability to yell, "Fire!" in a
crowded theater, either.
Or that part that says I, and my 250,000 closest friends, need to
get a permit to "peacefully assemble" on the national mall "to
petition the government for a refress of grievances."
AND YET, every Constitutional scholar in American history has
acknowledged that both of those laws are perfectly in keeping with
the First Amendment.
Christopher Monnier|5.14.07 @ 12:28PM|#
> No, Fluffy, it doesn't. You'd have to also have to spend
$100,000.
No, joe, the group would have to take in
$100,000. It doesn't matter if your group has 10 members or 100,000
members, and apparently also doesn't matter whether it spends the
money or just takes it in.
|5.14.07 @ 12:29PM|#
Annie Savoy: Oh, where are you going?
Crash Davis: After 12 years in the minor leagues, I don't try out.
Besides, uh, I don't believe in quantum physics when it comes to
matters of the heart.
Annie Savoy: What do you believe in, then?
Crash Davis: Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the
small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good
scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent,
overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment
outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I
believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your
presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe
in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 12:31PM|#
joe,
I can't find the part that limits my ability to yell, "Fire!"
in a crowded theater, either.
Since the core of the First Amendment's speech right concerns
political speech your example is inapt.
Or that part that says I, and my 250,000 closest friends, need
to get a permit to "peacefully assemble" on the national mall "to
petition the government for a refress of grievances."
Such a permit cannot be content restrictive and I doubt it would
ever require a census of the folks showing up. Furthermore, such a
permit deals with the use of a public facility or forum and no such
forum necessarily exists in this circumstance.
AND YET, every Constitutional scholar in American history has
acknowledged that both of those laws are perfectly in keeping with
the First Amendment.
Yep, and neither of them is on point.
|5.14.07 @ 12:32PM|#
"Great. More money wasted."
Some of us don't consider greater transparency in the political
process to be a waste. You know, like those people who show up on
every campaign finance threat to argue that the law should be
limited to public disclosure.
"And what if I don't want my spending habits to be made
public?"
You want to fund political acivity, but make sure no one finds out?
You don't run a liquor store, do you?
"As for the publication of such information government disclosure
laws aren't necessary for those to become public knowledge. That is
what the press is for (in part)."
And the press is going to uncover who is behind "Little Old Ladies
Against Drunk Driving," and who funds the, how, exactly, without
public disclosure?
In case you haven't noticed, virtually every story about who is
funding which candidates and groups is based on research into the
FEC database.
Fluffy|5.14.07 @ 12:32PM|#
The Holmes decision where the "Fire" exception comes from is
exceptionally poorly written.
It's only illegal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre if it isn't
your theatre. That makes it run of the mill disorderly conduct. You
have absolutely no free speech rights on anyone else's property. If
you yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre and it is your theatre, you're
not liable for the speech if people are injured - you're liable for
not maintaining safe conditions for persons using your
property.
Holmes was a big fat idiot. The case that famous quote comes from
was also ludicrously wrongly decided. Debs should have tracked
Holmes down and shot him in the face as a tyrant.
"Time, place and manner" restrictions on speech don't have as much
to do with speech as they do with the ability of the federal
government to own property and designate it for a particular use. I
can't hold my demonstration on the floor of the House of
Representatives because that public property is already in use. I
can't hold it in the middle of I-95 because that property is
already in use. But if I find public space somewhere that's not
currently in use, you're damn right that I don't think the state
has the power to force me to get a permit.
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 12:32PM|#
joe,
In other words just because you can point to examples where speech
can be regulated doesn't mean that all examples of speech
regulation are constitutional.
|5.14.07 @ 12:35PM|#
Grotius,
"Yep, and neither of them is on point."
Actually, they're both exactly on point - the point being that "but
that law limits/put conditions on speech" does not demonstrate that
the law violates the First Amendment.
I know, it's a small point, but one that, surprisingly, needs to be
pointed out.
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 12:36PM|#
joe,
Some of us don't consider greater transparency in the political
process to be a waste.
You'd have to demonstrate that this has something to do with
transparency.
You want to fund political acivity, but make sure no one finds
out?
Yeah, sort of like a secret ballot.
And the press is going to uncover who is behind "Little Old Ladies
Against Drunk Driving," and who funds the, how, exactly, without
public disclosure?
The same way it finds all sorts of things. There is always a paper
trail.
In case you haven't noticed, virtually every story about who is
funding which candidates and groups is based on research into the
FEC database.
Yes, but the money that candidates take is quite different from
this situation. I have no problem with candidate disclosures.
|5.14.07 @ 12:37PM|#
Fluffy,
"But if I find public space somewhere that's not currently in use,
you're damn right that I don't think the state has the power to
force me to get a permit."
Round up the posse and try to take over an empty public park for a
demonstration some time.
|5.14.07 @ 12:38PM|#
The daily trolls are providing the First Amendment equivalent of the "If you've nothing to hide, then you shouldn't mind being strip searched" argument.
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 12:38PM|#
joe,
Actually, they're both exactly on point...
No, they aren't for the reasons that I detailed.
Chucklehead|5.14.07 @ 12:39PM|#
Possibly the greatest movie line ever.
We're sorry, but in order to express an opinion, you need to fill
out form QDH-003-A and have it vetted by the IRS.
|5.14.07 @ 12:39PM|#
Finally an issue that should have groups across the whole spectrum (or quadrants if you prefer) banding together to tell Congress to defeat this amendment. Do we really want to keep moving in the direction of having our "cartridge box" the only remaining protection of our individual rights?
Christopher Monnier|5.14.07 @ 12:41PM|#
> Some of us don't consider greater transparency in the
political process to be a waste.
I'm all for transparency, but not when the burden is on
individuals. Everything the *government* does,
should be 100% transparent. The burden should be on the government
and/or Congresspersons to document everything they do, why they do
it, and who paid for it.
An individual (or a group of individuals) can't legally force me to
do anything I don't want. The government can. Therefore, I don't
care how individuals or groups are funded...I can ultimately ignore
them if I want. I care dearly about the "who, what, when, where,
how, and why" the government does because their actions I cannot
ignore--I MUST comply.
|5.14.07 @ 12:41PM|#
"In other words just because you can point to examples where
speech can be regulated doesn't mean that all examples of speech
regulation are constitutional."
Of course not. My claim is much more modest - that pointing to some
examples where speech can be regulated means that some examples of
regulating speech are constitutional.
"Yeah, sort of like a secret ballot."
And here we find ourselves balancing competing interests - is the
benefit of keeping astroturfing secret greater than the benefit of
allowing the public to know who is behind a political
campaign.
"Yes, but the money that candidates take is quite different from
this situation. I have no problem with candidate
disclosures."
There is no difference in terms of the question asked - how the
press would gain access to the information about who funds the
political campaigns.
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 12:43PM|#
Christopher Monnier,
You basically hit the nail on the head. That is the primary and
most important distinction between disclosure laws for politicians
and disclosure laws for citizens.
Guy Montag|5.14.07 @ 12:43PM|#
Seems some on this board read the First Amendment in the same manner they read the Second.
|5.14.07 @ 12:44PM|#
Grotius,
"No, they aren't for the reasons that I detailed."
You're going to have to do better than "nuh uh." I told you why the
examples are relevant, and what they are relevant to.
|5.14.07 @ 12:49PM|#
Christopher Monnier,
Since the private organizations/individuals in question are seeking
to influence the government, and what it can force you to do, your
distinction doesn't hold up.
I can agree with your argument if the "astroturf" groups were
working to get people to buy more Rice Krispies, but the fact that
they are working to get people to back some stance on how the
government will regulate, tax, or otherwise impose on us makes
these campaigns very relevant to the interest you agree with.
Dave W.|5.14.07 @ 12:50PM|#
The daily trolls are providing the First Amendment
equivalent of the "If you've nothing to hide, then you shouldn't
mind being strip searched" argument.
The "trolls" have the "First Amendment equivalent" of probable
cause here, which makes it okay.
Timothy|5.14.07 @ 12:54PM|#
The MLB should've moved away from astroturf as soon as the more realistic faux grass systems became feasible. Now, I'm not saying there needs to be government intervention to make astroturf illegal, but it sure would be nice if they'd replace it with a better playing surface. Baseball simply isn't meant to be played on carpet.
Chucklehead|5.14.07 @ 12:55PM|#
Since the private organizations/individuals in question are
seeking to influence the government, and what it can force you to
do, your distinction doesn't hold up.
Are you reading the same First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States as I am?
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 12:56PM|#
Dave W.,
There is no First Amendment equivalent of "probable cause,"
particularly since we're discussing political speech here.
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 12:58PM|#
Chucklehead,
It is totally odd to think that in order to petition the government
one must first register to do so.
Christopher Monnier|5.14.07 @ 12:59PM|#
> Since the private organizations/individuals in question are
seeking to influence the government, and what it can force you to
do, your distinction doesn't hold up...
Isn't "influencing the government" basically the same thing as
"petitioning the government for a redress of grievances?"
Chucklehead|5.14.07 @ 1:00PM|#
Wouldn't registering with the government, in order to petition the government, also be a kind of petition?
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 1:02PM|#
Chucklehead,
I guess it would be a petition to be allowed to petition? ;)
Guy Montag|5.14.07 @ 1:03PM|#
Isn't "influencing the government" basically the same thing
as "petitioning the government for a redress of
grievances?"
It is exactly the same thing. Some people seem to think that word
games to transfer your freedom to them is a perfectly acceptable
method of oppression liberty empowerment.
|5.14.07 @ 1:05PM|#
There is no First Amendment equivalent of "probable cause,"
particularly since we're discussing political speech
here.
Wouldn't that be the "compelling interest" test in strict
scrutiny?
|5.14.07 @ 1:08PM|#
Just to put this silly Grotius/joe dustup to bed, here's the
recap:
Fluffy said: I can't find the part in the 1st Amendment where
it says that to be eligible to be part of the speech that can't be
abridged or the assembly that can't be abridged, I have to provide
details on all my speech and all my assembly for my neighbor to
review.
Joe (possibly) misinterpreted this to mean "Speech and assembly can
never be restricted anytime, ever." He then provided examples of
legal restrictions on speech and assembly.
Grotius misinterpreted that to mean "because some speech
restrictions are legal, all speech restrictions are legal".
Today's lesson: if you find yourself interpreting someone else's
statement in such a way that it is completely, utterly absurd, say
to yourself, "maybe I'm not reading this correctly..."
Now all of you go kiss and make up.
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 1:11PM|#
Lamar,
Does it make much sense compare the limited power of the
government to search, etc. a particular place, etc. with the speech
right?
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 1:13PM|#
Biff,
I already put it do bed.
The main thrust of my comments were to detail why joe's examples
are inapt.
|5.14.07 @ 1:14PM|#
Both are instances where the government may abuse
overcome its constitutional limitations.
|5.14.07 @ 1:15PM|#
I'm not in love with this proposed law. But since, as
libertarians, we prefer greater disclosure, as opposed to
restrictions on political donations, what exactly is the better
alternative?
We have a First Amendment "right to lie", especially about
politics. The antidote to that is transparency. How else do we get
that?
|5.14.07 @ 1:15PM|#
In other words, you are misinterpreting me.
So in addition to "nuh-uh", you also have "I know you are but what
am I" in your arsenal. Good show.
Fluffy|5.14.07 @ 1:15PM|#
"And here we find ourselves balancing competing interests - is
the benefit of keeping astroturfing secret greater than the benefit
of allowing the public to know who is behind a political
campaign."
Um - the benefit to whom?
Speech isn't free because it benefits someone. And it doesn't have
to benefit anyone to be free. The question of benefit never
arises.
The fact is that you're attempting to place an affirmative burden
on the speaker or assembler to make it easy for others to know
about their speech.
No member of the public has any right to know anything about my
speech, my political activity, or my spending. The Congress has no
right to place an affirmative burden on me to undertake some action
to engage in political speech or assembly on my own property.
Once again this "balancing interests" crap as a legal theory only
comes into play if we assume the Bill of Rights is a set of
guidelines, to be abridged whenever the state thinks it has a good
reason. It's crap law and always has been. If there is a conflict
between a state power and an enumerated right, the state power
loses. Always. No other reasonable reading of the Constitution is
really possible. There would have been no point to passing the
amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights if they weren't going
to, you know, actually AMEND the Constitution and restrict the
actual or implied powers listed in the original unamended text.
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 1:18PM|#
Biff,
Actually, I'm mostly trying to derail any further controversy. What
are you trying to do?
Anyway, my comments on the issue of why joe's examples are inapt
are quite substantive. You can read them if you like.
Dave W.|5.14.07 @ 1:21PM|#
Wouldn't that be the "compelling interest" test in strict
scrutiny
I don't know since not only are we not talking about a "prior
restraint" her, but moreover we are not talking about a "restraint"
at all. Aren't there any lower standards of scrutiny for this lower
lever of intrusiveness?
To answer Grotius: I only mentioned probably cause because I was
going with Ironchef's "strip searching" analogy. If you ever read
any history, you would know that that is why I put Ironchef's
"First Amendment equivalent" phrasing in scare quotes.
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 1:23PM|#
Fluffy,
The thing of course is that the conversations at the Constitutional
Convention were, well, at least officially, secret (at least until
Madison's death).
|5.14.07 @ 1:24PM|#
Chucklehead,
"Are you reading the same First Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States as I am?"
Yes, the one that has never been read to forbid laws requiring
public disclosure. Yes, the one that requires food producers to
list their ingredients and nutritional information. Yes, the one
that requires a strict scrutiny test for laws that place
restrictions on speech. Yes, we are reading that same First
Amendment.
Chirstopher Monnier,
'Isn't "influencing the government" basically the same thing as
"petitioning the government for a redress of grievances?"'
Yes, it is. And running for office is the same things as "speech."
We require candidates for office to collect and release this
information. While they are running for office, they are private
citizens seeking to effect a vote in order to influence what the
government does - just like astroturf groups.
Grotius,
"Does it make much sense compare the limited power of the
government to search, etc. a particular place, etc. with the speech
right?"
It makes sense to compare the limited power of the government to
condition speech and assembly to the limited power of governemnt to
carry out searches.
That's what I got out of Dave W.'s comment - that there are
conditions (the "compelling interest" doctrine) under which speech
and assembly can be conditioned, just as there are conditions under
which government searches can be allowed.
|5.14.07 @ 1:24PM|#
Anyway, my comments on the issue of why joe's examples are
inapt are quite substantive. You can read them if you
like.
Dude, I read them. They're substantive, and wholly irrelevant. Let
me say this again: nobody is arguing that those examples prove
that this astroturf law is A-OK.
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 1:26PM|#
Biff,
They aren't "irrelevant." After all, joe was using those two
examples as a means to defend the idea of these sorts of measures.
So me stating why they are off point is perfectly relevant to the
discussion at hand.
Enjoy your day.
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 1:28PM|#
Fluffy,
In other words, we have a long history secret political speech in
the U.S. Indeed it is likely the case that secrecy in political
speech is as important in keeping a society free as public speech
is.
|5.14.07 @ 1:29PM|#
Fluffy,
"Um - the benefit to whom?"
To the voters. More transparent politics is a good thing. It allows
us to make better decisions, just as more knowledge about products
and their prices allows us to make better decisions as
consumers.
"No member of the public has any right to know anything about my
speech, my political activity, or my spending. The Congress has no
right to place an affirmative burden on me to undertake some action
to engage in political speech or assembly on my own
property."
I disagree with these statements, as does the Supreme Court, and as
did the individuals who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights.
Chucklehead|5.14.07 @ 1:30PM|#
I've changed my mind. This is a good proposal. But the $100k threshold is a bit too high in my opinion. I think anyone that contributes ten bucks or more ought to register. My reasoning is that ten bucks will allow an individual or organization to purchase 24 first-class stamps, which could then be used to mail out letters or postcards urging people to contact their Representative or Senator about some issue. And since a dozen or so calls to said Representative or Senator is clearly lobbying, we ought to know who paid for those stamps.
|5.14.07 @ 1:32PM|#
Dave W.: I wish I had more time, but isn't there a super level of strict scrutiny for prior restraint?
Timothy|5.14.07 @ 1:33PM|#
Yes, joe, the founders were TOTALLY against anonymous political speech. As is evidenced by every document in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers being signed, dated, and sealed by the true author.
|5.14.07 @ 1:34PM|#
Everyone else seems to both understand why, and how, those two
examples are apt, Grotius.
Fluffy made an absolutist statement. I showed that the matter was
not absolute, and gave two counter-examples. That is the extent of
the point I made, and nothing you wrote refutes that limited
point.
You're right, it refutes another point - that those examples
demonstrate that this law is right - but I didn't make that point,
nor provide those examples as evidence of that point.
I refuted Fluffy's absolutist point. He wrote that the First
Amendment forbids the government from putting any restrictions on
speech. He was wrong, and I provided two examples that proved he
was wrong.
Nobody else is having any diffuculty getting this - you're just
being stubborn, and playing dumb to avoid admitting that you read a
point into my comment that wasn't there.
Just. Let. It. Go.
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 1:34PM|#
Dave W.,
If one goes by the limited Supreme Court decisions on the issue
"prior restraint" is verboten except in some very particular
circumstances, one example given being given as I recall the "time
tables" of troop transports.
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 1:36PM|#
joe,
Anyway, even if that were the case, since when did "majority
opinion" here at Hit n' Run start to matter to you?
|5.14.07 @ 1:36PM|#
Timothy,
Nice straw man. Someday, you'll be big enough to argue against
points made by actual people!
(I'll do you the favor of assuming you are deliberately being
obtuse, rather than lacking the 8th-grade reading skills necessary
to realize that I didn't claim the Founders were opposed to
individuals engaging in anonymous political speech).
|5.14.07 @ 1:38PM|#
Yes, the one that has never been read to forbid laws
requiring public disclosure.
That would be incorrect. The First Amendment has been read to
prohibit "forced speech." See, e.g., West Virginia State Board of
Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
Yes, the one that requires food producers to list their
ingredients and nutritional information.
Rightly or wrongly, "commercial speech" is given less 1A protection
than political speech. Since we are talking political speech here,
pointing to laws that have passed muster under a lower standard
doesn't really help.
Yes, the one that requires a strict scrutiny test for laws that
place restrictions on speech. Yes, we are reading that same First
Amendment.
And can you possibly believe that this law would pass a strict
scrutiny test? What is the compelling public interest that can be
served in no other way?
|5.14.07 @ 1:38PM|#
Let it go, Grotius. You misread my statement. It's been
explained to you several times. Even you get it at this
point.
Just move on. You're not accomplishing anything, not making any
point, not refuting any point, not shedding any light on
anything.
You're just advertising the fact that you misread what I wrote.
It's been cleared up.
Move. On.
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 1:40PM|#
R.C. Dean,
Since we are talking political speech here, pointing to laws
that have passed muster under a lower standard doesn't really
help.
Thanks for pointing that out more succinctly than I did.
|5.14.07 @ 1:45PM|#
I didn't claim the Founders were opposed to individuals
engaging in anonymous political speech
It's not really clear what you were claiming, joe. You should
probably clarify.
Anyway, truly anonymous speech should be legal, and the
Founders wanted it that way. Astroturfing isn't anonymous speech,
it's deliberately deceptive speech - a speaker trying to
pretend he's someone he isn't. Saying you're "Publius" is different
from saying you're "Republicans for Clean Air".
The law is a bad idea because it's overbroad and burdens
non-astroturfing groups as well as astroturfing groups. Again,
though, what's our better alternative?
|5.14.07 @ 1:47PM|#
joe,
I think what Grotius is saying is that there is a vast difference
between the permissible restrictions on free speech you mention,
and the proposed law restricting astroturfing.
A person who yells "Fire" in a movie theater is creating a clear
and present danger to the public safety, so their behavior falls
within the police power of the state. Gathering 250,000 people in a
single location on public property is going to disrupt other
people's ability to use it, so again the govt has a legitimate
interest there as well.
Astroturfing does not threaten public safety or hog the use of
public property. You haven't presented any such compelling interest
that the govt has to regulate such speech. Also, there is the small
fact that legitimate, non-astroturfing organizations will also be
negatively impacted by this law, which I'm told is another
consideration the courts take into account when dealing with 1st
ammendment cases.
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 1:48PM|#
Timothy,
You know the Federalist Papers could be construed as a
form of astroturfing (depending on how liberally one applies the
term), since the term "federalism" probably more aptly applied to
the so-called "anti-Federalists."
|5.14.07 @ 1:48PM|#
RC Dean,
"Public disclosure" and "Forced Speech" are not cotermimus. The 1st
Amendment has been read to forbid SOME forced speech. It has never
been read, as Chucklehead claimed, to forbid ALL "forced speech,"
such as public disclosure. If it had, there would be no food
labelling laws. You made the Grotius error - reading my refutation
of a statement asserting an absolute as if I, myself, was making an
absolute statement.
"Rightly or wrongly, "commercial speech" is given less 1A
protection than political speech. Since we are talking political
speech here, pointing to laws that have passed muster under a lower
standard doesn't really help."
OK, so you are acknowledging that the absolutist statement I
refuted is, in fact, untrue in some cases. Good.
Now, are disclosure laws on political activity constitutional? The
laws requiring the disclosure of donations to candidates have been
repeatedly upheld.
"What is the compelling public interest that can be served in no
other way?" Exactly the same one that is served by the similar
requirements placed on the campaigns of candidates for office - the
greater transparency created by public disclosure. You can find
some really well-phrased expressions of this principle on old
threads about McCain-Feingold, by libertarians opposed to donation
limits and ad regulations.
Dave W.|5.14.07 @ 1:49PM|#
Dave W.: I wish I had more time, but isn't there a super
level of strict scrutiny for prior restraint?
I don't know. Back at lawr skeel, I took as little Con Law as I
could get away with, in favor or corporations and IP.
It is just that, intuitively, "compelling interest" and "strict
scrutiny" seem overly tough for a law that is content neutral and
mandates only disclosure-related things, rather than
substance-related things.
|5.14.07 @ 1:53PM|#
I refuted Fluffy's absolutist point. He wrote that the First
Amendment forbids the government from putting any restrictions on
speech.
I'm pretty sure he didn't.
Anyway, having failed to convince either Grotius or joe, I hereby
retire from my brief stint as Hit & Run Hall Monitor. I want to
spend more time with my family.
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 1:53PM|#
In other words, the Constitution created a far more centralized government than the federation then in place, yet supporters of the document called themselves federalists. Of course at this point it becomes an argument over word definition (a generally pointless endeavour).
|5.14.07 @ 1:55PM|#
Again, though, what's our better alternative?
Ever heard of caveat emptor?
If Little Old Ladies Against Drunk Driving is able to convince the
citizenry to support anti-beer laws, does it matter who pays their
bills?
|5.14.07 @ 1:56PM|#
crimethink,
I'm certainly open to the idea that this law is unduly burdensome
one small political organizations. I can recognize this as a cost,
to be weighed against the benefits of transparency.
I'm just objecting to the arguments that 1) there is no benefit to
knowing who is behind an astroturf campaign and 2) this law must be
unconstitutional because it involves speech and assembly.
As a matter of constitutional law, laws that restrict or condition
speech CAN be constitutional, if they meet certain standards; as a
matter of fact (although debateable), transparency does provide
benefits to the political system.
|5.14.07 @ 1:56PM|#
If Little Old Ladies Against Drunk Driving is able to
convince the citizenry to support anti-beer laws, does it matter
who pays their bills?
Obviously it does, otherwise nobody would bother with astroturfing
in the first place.
|5.14.07 @ 1:57PM|#
Constitutional issues aside, it is a question of who do you trust, the voters' ability to see through astroturfing and make a decision for themselves or politician's ability not to use this kind of thing as a way to harrass groups that oppose them. Being at heart a democrat, I trust the voters' judgement and the maketplace of ideas to work these kinds of things out. Politicians on the other hand will use this power to stomp on whoever happens to be out of power. Never was a bigger lie told than people claiming the "need to stop the corrupting influence of money in politics". Bullshit. This is all about using the corrupting influence of regulatory and police power to stile debate and intimidate dissenters. The people who support this ought to be ashamed of themselves.
|5.14.07 @ 1:57PM|#
I refuted Fluffy's absolutist point. He wrote that the First
Amendment forbids the government from putting any restrictions on
speech.
So, having shown that that absolute statement is false, now you can
safely ignore Grotius' non-absolutist arguments?
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 1:57PM|#
crimethink,
The thing of course is that any good reporter could ask all sorts
of pointed questions about the funding of such an organization and
if they aren't forthcoming that fact alone can be seized on.
|5.14.07 @ 1:59PM|#
crimethink,
"If Little Old Ladies Against Drunk Driving is able to convince the
citizenry to support anti-beer laws, does it matter who pays their
bills?"
There is a reason why special interests pose as grassroots groups -
because it's effective. Little Old Ladies Against Drunk Driving
operates under that name because they know that the fraud involved
in adopting that persona can influence the public.
Decisions made based on truth are better than decisions made based
on fraud.
Chucklehead|5.14.07 @ 1:59PM|#
It has never been read, as Chucklehead claimed, to forbid
ALL "forced speech," such as public disclosure.
Where did I claim this, exactly?
Besides, joe, I'm on your side now. Read my ten-dollar proposal.
After all, if the law applies to the wealthy, it ought to apply to
the poor as well. Or... are you advocating regulating political
speech for some, but not for others based on some arbitrary dollar
amount?
... That certainly doesn't seem egalitarian...
|5.14.07 @ 1:59PM|#
This is another example of our celebrity worshipping/ad hominem as an OK argument/wanna have a beer with the president society. We don't really examine the specific proposal as long as a sympathetic figure presents it.
|5.14.07 @ 2:00PM|#
So, having shown that that absolute statement is false, now
you can safely ignore Grotius' non-absolutist arguments?
Who are you talking to, and WTF are you talking about?
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 2:00PM|#
John,
we should also consider your comments in light of the current
controversy over dismissals at the Justice Department.
|5.14.07 @ 2:02PM|#
I'm certainly open to the idea that this law is unduly
burdensome one small political organizations. I can recognize this
as a cost, to be weighed against the benefits of
transparency.
joe, you sound awfully anxious to make your omelette. I wonder,
would you support forcing Congresscritters to undergo public lie
detector tests to ferret out their true motivations when proposing
legislation?
That's transparency I could get behind.
|5.14.07 @ 2:02PM|#
crimethink,
I haven't ignored Grotius's non-absolutist arguments. I agreed with
him that those cases do not prove that this law is legit (just
refute one argument about why it cannot be legit), and have
attempted several comments about transparency and public disclosure
of funding already being accepted by the courts as legitimate
governments interests.
|5.14.07 @ 2:07PM|#
"we should also consider your comments in light of the current
controversy over dismissals at the Justice Department."
I don't think so. US Attorneys are slithery political creatures who
got their jobs at the pleasure of the President and because of
their connections. If they don't want to toe the party line,
whatever that is, then they need to find a new job. I didn't blame
Clinton when he canned every one of them. I wouldn't blame any
president for canning US attornies for sport or any reason they
want. Politics is politics.
This case is about people and their ability to petition the
government, not about some politically connected croney to keep his
job after he pissed off the powers that be.
|5.14.07 @ 2:10PM|#
Chucklehead,
"Where did I claim this, exactly?"
At 12:55 PM.
Anyway, your ten-dollar proposal fails a cost-benefit analysis.
Groups operating with a $10 budget have nothing to do with the
problem of astroturfing; even if they did, they wouldn't be big
enough to accomplish anything; and the resources and intrusiveness
required to enforce a law on everyone that small would be
prohibitive. You know, the "this regulation looks absurd if we
change it to something absurd, so the original regulation is bad"
isn'really very effective.
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 2:10PM|#
crimethink,
Well, I can't promise much ingenuity at my blog but it is
interesting to a create a "little world" of one's own.
|5.14.07 @ 2:11PM|#
BTW, Grotius, I got the link to your blog from a thread on the Reason group at Big Facebook. You should check it out sometime if you haven't already.
|5.14.07 @ 2:11PM|#
crimethink,
"joe, you sound awfully anxious to make your omelette."
Could it possibly be that you could be assigning me a more
absolutist position than I actually hold? It's been known to
happen...
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 2:13PM|#
crimethink,
I am working on a very large piece on Strauss that I'll hopefully
finish by the weekend and publish there. An absolutely fascinating
intellect.
|5.14.07 @ 2:21PM|#
The law would apply to any group that took in at least
$100,000 in any given quarter for "paid communications campaigns"
aimed at mobilizing the public....
This is the problem with the bill: What exactly is a paid
communications campaign? How will we define aimed at mobilizing the
public?
If I run an organization that takes in donations for other
purposes, but has a website, would I be guilty of running a paid
communications campaign?
What if I was a watchdog group that reported on corporate and
government issues, laws, scandals on its website? Am I now trying
to mobilize the public?
If I report on a piece of legislation on my website that I find to
be egregious and post a link on my website to a page where people
can write their congresspeople a note on this, am I a paid public
lobbyist or a concerned citizen? I can almost guarantee that the
government will interpret me as a lobbyist, even I'm completely
user supported and I'll be subject to even more onerous costs and
regulations because I chose to exercise my rights of free speech
and encouraged others to do the same.
Whatever it's intent, it will be used as a silencing tactic. And it
will silence the little guys in favor of corporate interests that
can afford to pay the additional costs of complying with the
regulations.
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 2:24PM|#
crimethink,
Anyway, hopefully the comment at Facebook was a positive one.
:)
dhex|5.14.07 @ 2:32PM|#
"Nothing to add, dhex?"
not really!
you're in one of your moods, so we'll leave it at that.
|5.14.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Grotius,
Well, it was sort of neutral. It also contained a link to our old
reactionary friend gaius' blog at
declineandfallofwesterncivilization.blogspot.com (which I wrongly
thought was a joke).
Christopher Monnier|5.14.07 @ 2:42PM|#
I don't think joe has sufficiently addressed my
question of why the burden should be on individuals and
non-government groups and not necessarily on the government. The
reason "because they're trying to influence the government" isn't
good enough for me. Interpreted as loosely as the commerce clause,
we're essentially all trying to influence the government one way or
another.
Why do we care who's funding the advertisements and other type of
speech we see? Last time I checked, an advertisement can't
confiscate your property at gunpoint. Yes, the ads are trying to
ultimately influence the government, but so what...the rubber
doesn't meet the road until the government actually does
something.
And that's when we really need transparency--when the government is
doing something (i.e. passing a law). Every law should have a
transparency disclosure wherein each person or group that lobbied
for and against the law is recorded, how much money was spent
lobbying on the law, and who will benefit from the law.
Why waste effort on disclosing who paid for ads that *might* affect
policy? Why not focus on actions by the government that actually
*do* affect government policy?
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 2:44PM|#
crimethink,
Oh man, what a name for a blog.
Oh, and just to clarify (since I've been asked this a few times in
"meatspace"), "ingenuus" is the Latin term for an individual, hmm,
well born free. The Romans made a legal and cultural distinction
between those born free and those who are manumitted; I'm of course
taking some liberties with the former.
|5.14.07 @ 2:45PM|#
Or we could return to strict interpretation of the constitution, interpret the commerce clause narrowly, and eliminate the need for corporations to try and influence a small government that has no power to grant them favors.
|5.14.07 @ 2:46PM|#
joe,
Can I get your full name and mailing address? I need to make sure
your comments aren't part of some astroturffing campaign... your
postings could easily be a fake identity created by an evil
corporation. Since you are all for transparency and disclosure, you
should be happy to give me that information.
In addition, please answer another question... what happens when I
donate money to a grass roots campaign to increase auto safety
standards... and because of "transparency" that you so love, the
auto companies that I do work for decide they no longer need my
services... that those services are better provided to someone more
politically acceptable? I know you come from the leftist "All
government legislation works 100% as planned and there are never
negative consequences for a law" school of thought, but can't you
see how these kinds of laws could be used to stifle political
speech?
Guy Montag|5.14.07 @ 2:54PM|#
Rex Rhino,
If you keep accurate records, then beat yourself up in the office
of your boss, with no witnesses, then you can have a safety
campaign funded by your former employer.
Can even fore a club too.
Solyent soap can fit in there someplace . . .
Chucklehead|5.14.07 @ 2:58PM|#
Aww, it ate the rest of my question. :-(
I wanted to know, joe, why people that come together in order to
urge their fellow citizens to contact their democratically-elected
representatives need to be regulated if they happen to pull in a
fat wad of cash?
And I still think my ten-dollar proposal is solid. Pshaw to your
cost-benefit analysis. Since when does the federal government need
to break even?
|5.14.07 @ 2:59PM|#
Christopher Monnier,
I support efforts to make the governemnt more transparent, too.
Even more than astroturf groups. I don't think the minutes of these
groups' board meetings need to be published for public review, for
example.
Rex,
You have my full name and email address.
You know I'm not an astroturfer, because of the extremely limited
distribution of my arguments.
"your postings could easily be a fake identity created by an evil
corporation" Even if they were, my comments don't amount to enough
of a campaign to actually matter. Hence, the cutoff in the
bill.
"what happens when I donate money to a grass roots campaign to
increase auto safety standards... and because of "transparency"
that you so love, the auto companies that I do work for decide they
no longer need my services"
You sue their asses for a civil rights violation, and win, thanks
to laws supported by people like me, and opposed by people like
you.
Wow, that was easy.
|5.14.07 @ 3:03PM|#
So it can be made public, and the voters can know that
"Little Old Ladies Against Drunk Driving," who keep buy ads against
a referendum to allow grocery stores to sell beer, is actually a
group of liquor store owners seeking to protect their
monopoly.
And also so that if a group of citizens want to pool their money,
and that of like-minded people, to push for enactment of
legislation that pisses off politicians, said politicians can
arrange to have the paperwork of the citizens' group scrutinized in
hopes of finding some technical violation of the law, so the
leaders of the group can be fined and shut up. Or better still, so
the intricacies of the law scare off the citizens' group from even
getting started in the first place.
Christopher Monnier|5.14.07 @ 3:06PM|#
> I support efforts to make the governemnt more transparent,
too.
But isn't this enough? Why must we violate the rights or
individuals in order to achieve even greater transparency? And why
draw the line where you've drawn it? Surely we could get a little
more transparency if we DID require meeting minutes of board
meetings...why not do this?
Perhaps you value transparency more than liberty? I believe
individual liberty is supreme. We should scrounge for every bit of
transparency we can get from within the government. Individual
liberty trumps transparency, at least for me.
Chucklehead|5.14.07 @ 3:11PM|#
Y'know, if they call it the Federal Regulations Ensuring Egalitarian Speech Pertaining to Election Engineering Come Hell And Cresting Tides, it might pass.
Christopher Monnier|5.14.07 @ 3:16PM|#
(campaign commercial in 2008): "John Politician is a champion of free speech. In 2007 he supported the FREE SPEECH ACT to crack down on astro-turfing groups determined to deceive the American public. He's also committed to preserving America's liberty, as evidenced by his support of the USA PATRIOT act..."
highnumber|5.14.07 @ 3:16PM|#
Wow, that was easy.
What was easy? Posting that comment?
Frankly, joe, I would prefer the option of maintaining my privacy.
Civil rights lawsuits sound like a pain in the ass,
knowhutimean?
Paul Sherman|5.14.07 @ 3:30PM|#
For anyone interested, the Center for Competitive Politics has
written extensively on grassroots lobbying disclosure (for links to
lots of our previous stuff, including policy primers, op-eds, blog
commentary, and the text of the Meehan proposal, go here:
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/id.237/blog_detail.asp).
For now I'd just like to make a few quick points.
Whatever its possible merits, grassroots lobbying disclosure is
essentially a government database of citizen political activity.
There's something distinctly Orwellian about that and we should be
sure that the benefits outweigh the risks before we go supporting
it. We can be certain that the risks of disclosure are real; for a
recent example, see Sen. Kerry's grilling of Ambassador Sam Fox
over the latter's donations to Swift Boat Vets. The potential
benefits, on the other hand, are much less well-established.
The debate certainly isn't furthered by the use of the term
"Astroturf." This term may be more convenient than "grassroots
lobbying," but it badly distorts the nature of the activity.
Grassroots lobbying consists of nothing more than one group of
private citizens contacting another group of private citizens and
asking them to urge their legislators to vote for position X. The
calls that a legislator receives as a result represent real
people--not "fraudulent" people or "Astroturf" people--who were
convinced by the argument they heard. This is true regardless of
the speaker or the speaker's motives. It is true regardless of how
well funded the speaker is; the speaker, after all, is convincing
these people to call, not bribing them to do so.
CCP believes that private citizens, when exposed to such advocacy,
are capable of weighing its merits and of making decisions that
they believe are in their best interest. We believe they are
capable of doing so without knowing the identity of the speaker,
because the identity of the speaker does not bear on the merit of
the argument.
Reaching a conclusion on the merits of an argument isn't always
easy. Certainly it's more convenient to simply say: "I don't like
Speaker X, so I will ignore his argument." But the First
Amendment--and, accordingly, the protection enjoyed by anonymous
speech--doesn't make exceptions for convenience; it makes
exceptions for corruption. And there is nothing corrupt about
asking people to contact their legislators, no matter who does the
asking, who paid for it, or what they call themselves.
Again, for those who are interested in reading more about this (and
other political speech issues), we invite you to stop by our
website.
Sincerely,
Paul Sherman
Associate Director
Center for Competitive Politics
|5.14.07 @ 3:37PM|#
You sue their asses for a civil rights violation, and win,
thanks to laws supported by people like me, and opposed by people
like you.
Frankly, joe, I would prefer the option of maintaining my
privacy. Civil rights lawsuits sound like a pain in the ass,
knowhutimean?
Hear Hear!!
I too support laws for civil rights violations, but that doesn't
mean that people shouldn't be allowed to petition the government
anonymously. Regardless of how much money their group might take
in.
What a jackass-y mindset. Anonymity in speech is a right and very
important for many people in order to be able engage politically
and not face consequences which would otherwise keep them from
advocating.
Dave W.|5.14.07 @ 3:56PM|#
Regardless of how much money their group might take in . . .
Anonymity in speech is a right
I have always thought I should have the right to a pony. And the
right to run people over iff they stay in the crosswalk too long.
And other nice things. Rights = goooood.
Grotius|5.14.07 @ 4:02PM|#
ChicagoTom,
See, the numerous and manifest problems associated with this
particular government program can be remedied with another
government program. ;)
|5.14.07 @ 4:14PM|#
We can be certain that the risks of disclosure are real; for
a recent example, see Sen. Kerry's grilling of Ambassador Sam Fox
over the latter's donations to Swift Boat Vets.
Oh, the horror!
The debate certainly isn't furthered by the use of the term
"Astroturf." This term may be more convenient than "grassroots
lobbying," but it badly distorts the nature of the
activity.
By "debate not furthered" of course you mean your side of
the debate. Boo hoo.
You're being deliberately deceptive here. Nobody uses
"astroturfing" as a synonym for all "grassroots lobbying",
and you well know that. "Astroturfing" refers to fake grassroots
campaigns where a few donors pour lots of money into organizations
that pretend to be large-membership organizations (see the Parents
Television Council), or more generally to campaigns which pretend
to be representative of people which they are not (see the famous
"Republicans for Clean Air"). By trying to conflate astroturfing
(something any normal person can see as intentional deception) with
grassroots lobbying (something everyone supports), you're just
trying to mislead people yourself. I suppose that makes you a
perfect spokesman for this particular cause.
the identity of the speaker does not bear on the merit of the
argument
Please. If that were the case, none of your astroturfing buddies
would bother pretending in the first place. They do it because it's
misleading, and it works.
highnumber|5.14.07 @ 4:28PM|#
I think I have perfected my "Biff Translation Tool."
"I don't want to regulate all political speech. I just
want to regulate the political speech I don't agree with."
|5.14.07 @ 4:34PM|#
You sue their asses for a civil rights violation, and win,
thanks to laws supported by people like me, and opposed by people
like you.
Wow, that was easy.
Uh, where to begin?
First of all, they aren't going to come out and say "We aren't
hiring you because you donated money to the wrong political
campaign", the same way they would never come out and say "We won't
hire you because you are an ethnic minority". You simply find that
you are being passed up for those jobs. The company does a
background check on you including viewing your political donations
before even calling you for a consultation, and if you support
political campaigns they don't like, you simply never get a phone
call from them about a job. I wouldn't even know they haven't given
me a job because they would simply not contact me in the first
place.
Second of all, if you are a contractor, you never sue your
clients... ever, for any reason. Period. End of story. Who the hell
is going to do buisness with a contractor who might sue them? Even
if a client did something crazy like refused to pay me in violation
of our contract, I wouldn't sue them, I would eat the cost and just
never do buisness with them again. But it would cause severe harm
to my career to ever sue a client, no matter how justified.
If I somehow was unable to simply donate money to whoever I want
via extra-legal means (as any corporation or nefarious interest
with any resources will also be able to do), this kind of law would
prevent me from donating to any political group. It has a horrible
chilling effect on free speech and the political process. Everyone
who wants a job will have to tow the company line
politically.
Fortunatly, this kind of law isn't designed to prevent powerful
financial interests from astroturfing (they can continue to do so
illegally), but rather it is designed to destroy real grass-roots
campaigning by groups who might not want to break the law.
|5.14.07 @ 4:40PM|#
Biff,
Has it ever occured to you that some grassroots campaigns start as
"astroturf" campaigns and then get popular support and become true
grassroots orginizations. What's the difference between the two? At
what point can you distinguish when one becomes the other?
Putting excessive regulations on speech is a fast way to make it so
only rich people with an army of lawyers can even think about
starting a grassroots campaign. Which is exactly what you seem to
be railing against.
Fluffy|5.14.07 @ 4:41PM|#
Biff -
Your distinction between "astroturf" organizations and "genuine"
grassroots organizations is crap.
"where a few donors pour lots of money into organizations that
pretend to be large-membership organizations" - so what? How do
they pretend to be anything? By the name they give themselves? If
me and the two richest guys in America form a group called
"Citizens for Fair Tax Law", well, guess what - we're citizens, and
we're for fair tax law, so that makes the name anything but
deceptive. If you're mad because you think the name implies
hundreds of millions of members, too bad.
And Joe, you did not refute my absolutist position, at all. You
have provided throughout this thread a handful of examples of
wrongly decided cases. That's it. Debs Vs. United States? Wrongly
decided. The longstanding exception to the 1st Amendment for
obscenity? Wrongly decided every time. Prior restraint of
commercial speech? Bad law.
Come the revolution, the persons responsible will get their just
desserts. [I need a smiley icon. Can I get a smiley icon? Oh wait,
I forgot: :-) ]
|5.14.07 @ 5:11PM|#
What Biff said.
The worst-case example the "Competitive Politics Institute" was
able to come up with was...seriously, this is the one they picked
to highlight...the fact that Congress and the public were able to
figure out what sort of person was being nominated for an
ambassadorship, and vote to defeat the nomination. Ohnoes!
Astroturf does NOT refer to grassroots political acivity, but to
exactly the opposite - special interest political activity posing
as grassroots activity.
And if the identity of the speaker didn't matter, why are CPI's
clients - er, funders - er, members - paying so much to hide their
identities?
|5.14.07 @ 5:12PM|#
Fluffy,
Yes, except for the past two centures of Constitutional Law, your
argument about the Constitution is very strong.
|5.14.07 @ 5:17PM|#
This is just another iteration of the argument over whether the
right to free speech includes the right to spend money spreading
your ideas.
The Supreme Court has ruled that there is a right to anonymity in
making political speech - you cannot compel disclosure of the
identity of the author of an anonymous pamphlet.
We are just arguing about whether the state can go ahead and compel
disclosure of the identity of whoever paid for the anonymous
pamphlet to be copied and mailed.
|5.14.07 @ 5:18PM|#
Astroturf does NOT refer to grassroots political acivity,
but to exactly the opposite - special interest political activity
posing as grassroots activity.
How do you distinguish between the two? Is MoveOn Astroturf?
|5.14.07 @ 5:19PM|#
Putting excessive regulations on speech is a fast way to
make it so only rich people with an army of lawyers can even think
about starting a grassroots campaign.
Which is, of course, exactly the reason our well-funded Political
Masters love this kind of thing.
highnumber|5.14.07 @ 5:28PM|#
Astroturf does NOT refer to grassroots political acivity,
but to exactly the opposite - special interest political activity
posing as grassroots activity.
It's already been said, but...
Grassroots are "special interests," too, joe.
Speech wasn't meant to be as free when it becomes too
organized?
Put up the sign from
Animal Farm and be done with it then.
|5.14.07 @ 5:32PM|#
joe, the kind of person being nominated for ambassador was the
kind who wanted to know the truth about a narcissistic serial
exaggerator who was running for president. I'm sure you would
disagree with the particulars, but I think you see the point here.
Would you heap the same scorn on a person who donated to Media
Matters, Moveon, or (insert liberal activist group here)?
(what a stupid question!)
Fluffy|5.14.07 @ 5:40PM|#
Joe -
It should be obvious that in discussions of constitutional
principle we can't be limited to existing case law and precedent.
If that were the case, there would be no reason for any
constitutional issues whatever to ever be adjudicated or disputed,
and the body of precedent would never change.
The fact that different courts could rule in diametrically opposite
ways in Plessy and Brown pretty much means that relying on
precedent is a bad idea.
I have the raw text of the document on my side, since it quite
plainly contains no exception for obscenity, no exception for
advocating resistance to the draft, no exception for commercial
speech, no exception for assembly if assembly requires the
expenditure of funds, etc. On your side you have precedents that
could be overturned at any moment. I bet the Washington DC
government thought that they plenty of precedent that the 2nd
Amendment was limited, too.
Paul Sherman|5.14.07 @ 5:42PM|#
Biff said:
Please. If that were the case [that "the identity of the
speaker does not bear on the merit of the argument"], none of your
astroturfing buddies would bother pretending in the first place.
They do it because it's misleading, and it works.
It most certainly is the case. An idea does not become good or bad
based on who proposes it; that's the very definition of the ad
hominem fallacy. Rational advocates, who know that individuals are
prone to those sorts of judgments, may want to conceal their
identity, and the constitution gives them that right.
Obviously, they hope their argument will be adopted uncritically;
every advocate hopes for that. But they certainly can't count on
that, and through anonymity they can at least assure that if their
argument is rejected, it is rejected on the merits and not because
of bias against the speaker.
Will some people use the right of anonymous speech to forward
selfish interests? Sure. And as federal power expands, we can
expect even more to do so. But if you look at people using
anonymous speech to seek rents through big government, and conclude
that the problem is too much anonymous speech, I'd suggest you're
missing both the real problem and the constitutional
solution.
As for retaliation, Ambassador Fox was merely a current example. If
you're unmoved by that example, I'd refer you to the Institute for
Justices cases San Juan County v. No New Gas Tax (in which
CCP submitted an amicus brief) and Sampson v. Dennis
(information available here:
http://www.ij.org/first_amendment/index.html). Both are cases where
ordinary citizens were hauled into court because of campaign
finance disclosure laws that (like grassroots lobbying disclosure)
had nothing to do with preventing quid pro quo
corruption.
Fluffy|5.14.07 @ 5:45PM|#
I also see no mechanism provided in the text of the 1st
Amendment to distinguish between "real grassroots activity" and
"special interest activity".
The term "special interest" has no real meaning here, since we're
talking about rights that are possessed by individuals. One or two
persons might have the most particular interests in the world, and
their interests might in fact be completely opposed by the interest
of the other 299 million Americans. That has nothing to do with
their right to speak and assemble about that interest, even if it's
just the two of them. Nothing at all.
|5.14.07 @ 6:09PM|#
I think I have perfected my "Biff Translation
Tool."
Which apparently is "pretend Biff said something he didn't actually
say, and attack him for it."
"I don't want to regulate all political speech. I just want to
regulate the political speech I don't agree with."
Having lurked here for a while, I usually respect your commentary,
highnumber, but you're just being an asshole now. Get back to me
when you're interested in an honest discussion.
|5.14.07 @ 6:19PM|#
If me and the two richest guys in America form a group
called "Citizens for Fair Tax Law", well, guess what - we're
citizens, and we're for fair tax law, so that makes the name
anything but deceptive.
What a well-chosen example. How about this or
this?
|5.14.07 @ 6:21PM|#
How do you distinguish between the two? Is MoveOn
Astroturf?
You require disclosure and let voters decide for themselves. This
is the approach libertarians are supposed to favor, instead of laws
restricting donations. But maybe that was just an argument of
convenience.
|5.14.07 @ 6:31PM|#
An idea does not become good or bad based on who proposes
it; that's the very definition of the ad hominem
fallacy.
In the real world of political advertising, the identity of the
speaker is part of the message. That's why it pays to
pretend you are, for example, the "Consumer Coalition for
Competition in Satellite Radio", as it makes voters think you are
actually a pro-competition group that has researched an issue and
evaluated it objectively.
Rational advocates, who know that individuals are prone to
those sorts of judgments, may want to conceal their identity, and
the constitution gives them that right.
Concealing your identity and faking your identity are two
very different things. "Publius" vs. "Republicans for Clean Air",
as I mentioned upthread.
|5.14.07 @ 6:46PM|#
joe of course completly ignored my arguement where I described
how making political funding public inevitably makes it possible
for your employer (or potential employer) to retaliate for your
political donations. Pretty much it eliminates the right to help
fund political groups that disagree with your employer.
I, of course, ignored issues such as the police raiding the homes
of people who donate to organization who want to reform drug
laws... or people who donate to pro-choice groups being targeted
for outright violence by pro-life extremists... Or people who
support gay-rights organizations being kicked out of their
church... or criminals targeting people who donate to anti-gun
groups as homes they want to rob.
But I figured joe would probably support these kinds of
exploitation (except maybe for the anti-guns people being targeted,
I am sure he would support a reporting exemption for that), so they
make a poor example.
highnumber|5.14.07 @ 6:57PM|#
Having lurked here for a while, I usually respect your commentary, highnumber, but you're just being an asshole now.
You must be confusing me with someone else. ;)
Biff,
You've somehow tricked me. You have made me want to be very nice
and earnest, and you have made me want to be a big time smart
alec(k) asshole, maybe even summon forth Urkobold.
Fie on you! You get both nice and asshole, but no Urkobold.
I think I'm becoming a shill for big Cato, but I recommend checking
these out:
A Skeptical
Look at Grassroots Lobbying Disclosure
Download a
Podcast of the Event (MP3)
and
The Dangers of
Disclosure: The Unintended Consequences of Campaign Regulations for
Free Speech and Privacy
Download
a Podcast of the Event (MP3)
They're long, but when you have the time, give them a listen.
Cato's policy forums are typically quite balanced discussions.
Fluffy|5.14.07 @ 8:17PM|#
I frankly don't have a problem with your first example.
If terrestrial broadcasters want to support groups that don't want
XM and Sirius to merge, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
I don't think the government should be able to regulate the merger
of those two companies. But since the state has taken that power
unto itself, it should now expect that other broadcasters to be
interested in the outcome of regulatory deliberations.
And if I called XM and said, "Hey, I don't think the government
should be able to regulate your merger. Give me some money and I'll
organize people who share that belief," if you are claiming the
power to stop me, you're a fascist.
The 2nd example is muddled, because some of the money is coming
from the tobacco settlement itself. I think the government's case
against the tobacco companies was atrocious law, and that therefore
the tobacco settlement shouldn't exist, but since it does exist and
since part of the monies have gone to anti-smoking groups, those
groups are now going to use that money to try to stop smoking.
Those are the breaks.
And by the way, just because some libertarian somewhere once told
you that he favored disclosure instead of regulation that doesn't
mean he has somehow bound us all to choose from among those two
options. I favor neither disclosure nor regulation. You still have
never dealt properly with the counterclaim that your entire
argument is the ad hominem fallacy writ large. When you say:
"In the real world of political advertising, the identity of the
speaker is part of the message. That's why it pays to pretend you
are, for example, the "Consumer Coalition for Competition in
Satellite Radio", as it makes voters think you are actually a
pro-competition group that has researched an issue and evaluated it
objectively."
I respond: Tough shit. Get smarter voters. The C3SR is offering an
argument, and the voters should be able to evaluate that argument
on its merits. If your argument is that we need disclosure because
voters are too stupid to do that, well...I'm not going to accept
limits on my speech and assembly based on the fact that people are
stupid. I don't need to know anything about the people funding the
Parents' Television Council to know that I don't agree with them. I
just need to read what they write and listen to what they say.
Directors Cut|5.14.07 @ 9:02PM|#
*gazes across school yard at lunchtime. High# there, Biff
there.
Will there be hand holding off into the sunset? Will they ever
reconcile?
Will the spark of humor that ignited their tempestuous relationship
ever get rekindled?
Tune in, dear readers, to next time's installment of NOT
WITHOUT MY TAINT
(A Zod/Urkobold production. All rights reserved)
|5.14.07 @ 9:53PM|#
If terrestrial broadcasters want to support groups that
don't want XM and Sirius to merge, why shouldn't they be allowed
to?
Good grief, dude, of course they should be allowed to.
They just shouldn't be able to pretend that they're a "consumer
coalition" when they're not.
Tough shit. Get smarter voters. The C3SR is offering an
argument, and the voters should be able to evaluate that argument
on its merits.
So it's ok to lie to people. It's their fault if they believe it,
the maroons.
And no, C3SR is not merely offering an argument. By pretending to
be someone the audience views as being honest and untainted by
personal financial interest, they are deliberately and specifically
arguing from authority. You should be pitching your "ad hominem
fallacy" shtick to C3SR, since they clearly don't believe
you.
just because some libertarian somewhere once told
you
Wow, I disagree with an absolutist position on disclosure, so I'm
kicked out of the libertarian club?
Oh highnumber, hold me.
if you are claiming the power to stop me, you're a
fascist.
And the thread goes Godwin! (or quasi-Godwin, anyway) Night,
folks.
|5.14.07 @ 10:28PM|#
So it's ok to lie to people. It's their fault if they
believe it, the maroons.
Biff, that's the premise our entire freaking political system is
built on. People running for office lie about everything under the
sun, and the only check on that behavior is for the voters to catch
on and give them das boot.
It's interesting that those of you who are so in love with forcing
disclosure on the part of non-govt advocacy groups, haven't
addressed my creative idea of forcing members of Congress to
undergo lie detector tests when they propose legislation. Only in
that way can we be sure to know their true motivations.
Why should citizens be subject to transparency laws, but not their
representatives?
|5.14.07 @ 10:33PM|#
Of course, it's also interesting that when there are ethical breeches perpetrated by members of Congress, the solution is always more regulation of the people outside Congress. Sort of like Adam & Eve telling God to kick just the Serpent out of Eden for being so darn tempting, if I may be forgiven for a biblical reference.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245