Thanks, Jackasses

House Democrats yesterday killed the Online Freedom of Speech Act, which would have exempted blogs from FEC campaign-finance rules.

Thanks to commenter Joshua Corning for the tip.

Comments

[smacky]

Nice thread title. Couldn't've said it better myself. Simple and effective.

[Jason Ligon]

I hereby affirm that I don't care one whit who Carpet Humping Man wants me to vote for.

Can we have a do over now?

[Stephen Macklin]

Personally I think we would have been better of if they hadn't eviscerated the First Amendment to begin with.

The failure of this legislation is ultimately as meaningless as any regulation the FEC attempts to impose. I for one will continue to advocate for whatever cause and candidate I choose. Nothing the FEC says or does will change that.

We already have an "Online Freedom of Speech Act." We call it the First Amendment

[Pro Libertate]

Rep. Marty Meehan, a Massachusetts Democrat who opposed the bill, said during the floor debate: "We don't allow child pornography on the Internet. We don't exempt it from consumer safety laws...We don't because we think those laws are important." Campaign finance regulations should be extended as well, he said.

Gosh, it's reassuring when congressmen don't even remotely get the Constitution. Child porn bans are a strongly accepted exception to speech protections. Consumer protection laws have nothing to do with Constitutional rights. Apparently, the standard for infringing on Constitutionally protected liberties is this: If Congress thinks a law is "important", then it may violate the Constitution at will. Yeehaw!

[James Anderson Merritt]

It just amazes me that the government can abridge freedom of speech and of the press, simply because speech is electronically assisted (radio and TV) and the press now entails printed and non-print (radio, TV, internet) publication. They seem to be weasel-parsing "speech" and "press" to match what the Founders knew, and this is OK, as long as the government ends up with the power to control the people. But when the shoe is on the other foot, they abandon narrow construction and inflate something like the Commerce Clause until it encompasses our backyard gardens, our eating, and breathing.

The US was founded on an idea, not an ethnicity, a shared language, or an historical homeland boundary. That is to say, the US exists first and foremost in the hearts and minds of its citizens. If it is corrupted or neglected there, we have no hope of realizing the US in the "real world." So first, we must make sure that the US lives and thrives inside us.

In the US that lives in MY heart and mind, interstate commerce must entail active economic interchange of goods and services over state lines.

In the US that lives in MY heart and mind, speech is the expression of information and ideas using any symbology or medium. "The Press" constitutes publication (intentional mass-distribution) of speech through any mechanism or medium, including electronic and digital means.

In the US that lives in MY heart and mind, "arms" include many more things than just firearms. The right to keep and bear them -- whichever of them a citizen deems appropriate for protection of self, home, family, and community -- is the fundamental right of self-defense. The government that tries to infringe that right proves itself to be illegitimate.

Do these ideas live in your heart and mind, also? If so, please do your best to be sure that your public actions (political contributions, contacts with officials, petition signatures, votes on election day, etc.) are consistent with those ideas, always serving to further them. Slowly, the outside world will change to match your inner vision. They used to say, "as above, so below." In the modern age, I say, "as inside, so outside."

[R C Dean]

We already have an "Online Freedom of Speech Act." We call it the First Amendment..

Yeah, but it was repealed. Didn't you get the memo?

Rep. Marty Meehan, a Massachusetts Democrat who opposed the bill, said during the floor debate: "We don't allow child pornography on the Internet. We don't exempt it from consumer safety laws."

WTF do consumer safety laws have to do with child porn? Is he saying that the ban on child porn is a consumer safety law? This just leads to the real question: Is there a Massachusetts Democrat who doesn't show up for work drunk?

[Phil]

Is there a Massachusetts Democrat who doesn't show up for work drunk?

I assume joe doesn't, but he's in a better position to know.

[He who shall be nameless]

SO here's my problem. I have this "friend" who works for Congress. Specifically, this "friend" works the Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources. For those of who don't know, that's the Subcommittee that produced the one bit of legislation the GOP can be proud of... Welfare Reform. The Subcommittee has jurisdiction over welfare, SSI, unemployment compensation, and other public assistance.

So anyway, this "friend" thinks that the name "Human Resources" is not only misleading (calls often come in from people looking for jobs) but also stupid. He is looking for suggestions. So far, he has come up with:

Subcommittee on Handouts
Subcommitee on Promoting Dependency

Suggestions?

[Baylen Linnekin]

RC Dean/Phil,

My mom, but she works in a real estate office outside Boston.

[WSDave]

I didn't read the piece, but does this mean that I can say nice things about my opponent without telling him, and then report him to the FEC for violations? SWEET!!!!

Adds a whole new definition of terrorism...

Or, if it's up to the blogger to report on himself, I'll just get a friend in another country to put up the posts.

Or better still, EVERYONE should blog about every politician and create a mind-boggeling paper trail.

[Pro Libertate]

Subcommitte on Subverting the Will

I've always hated the term "Human Resources". I've never encountered an HR department that didn't make things MORE difficult. Rather unlike the days where Personnel Departments hired people and stuff. Besides, the phrase is creepy. It either sounds like a place where human drones are kept for later labor use, or it sounds like what the Soylent company must've thought of the ingredients of its famous Green product.

[Pro Libertate]

Or Subcommittee on Subverting the Will, if that sounds better.

[joe]

OK, geniuses.

Meehan's examples are all laws that don't have an internet exemption. Child pornography is illegal in hard copy. It is also illegal online. False advertising (which falls under the heading "consumer safety laws") is illegal if done in a magazine. It is also illegal online.

Is that really so hard?

[Jason Ligon]

What are the full implications here? Does this really mean that Kos can't complain about Republicans before an election?

[Steven Crane]

I'm not sure what you're attempting to say here, joe.

I mean, we -know- that stuff. We also know that any attempts to justify either child pornography or false advertising don't have a constitutional leg to stand on. Political speech does.

[Gimme Back My Dog]

So much for that Deadwood Democrat bullshit.

[Gung Ho]

Or, if it's up to the blogger to report on himself, I'll just get a friend in another country to put up the posts.

careful..the dems might have buyer's remorse over Iraq, but their unholy alliance with McCain just might lead to a Bush-esque invasion after the '08 election of your hypothetical friend's country.

Substitute "...subverting political stability by violating campaign finance laws..." with "...subverting international stability by possessing weapons of mass destruction, etc..." in the run-up. It'll be as productive as Clinton's invasion of Haiti, Clinton's invasion of Somalia, and Bush 41's invasion of Panama combined.

[Dave W.]

I was quite puzzled by that thing about a 2/3 majority so that this could get expedited treatment.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Republicans set up the Democrats to kill this bill. Whoever made that weirdball 2/3 majority requirement, I think, should take at least half the blame for killing this bill.

[John]

This is one step away from what they have in places like Thialand where its literally illegal to comment publically about an election in the 30 days before an election. As it stands now, if I think a politician is a piece of crap and want to go out and take out newspaper ads and commercials urging the people to vote against him, I can't do it because of McCan Feingold. As far as I am concerned McCain Feingold effectively ended the First Amendment in this country because it set us down the road of telling us where and when and in what form we are allowed to have political expression. Rather than being a right, political expression is now a privilege dispensed to us by our betters. Now, its just a matter of time before they get to web sites and blogs and stop those.

Make no mistake about it, this was almost strictly partyline vote. Only 8 Republicans voted against the amendment. I wonder if people like Joe and Jennifer and Gaius who always on here yapping that the dark night of facism is falling on America because Bush invaded Iraq or locked up a few people in Guantonimo Bay are going to say about this? This really is opression at our most basic right and the life blood of a free society. Anyone not outraged by this and willing to go to the barracades to tell the FCC and everyone in Congress who voted for this to go get fucked, has forfeited their right to complain about anything and pretty much revealed themselves as a fraud not interested in freedom or a free society but only interested in acheiving their own partisian ends.

[Pro Libertate]

You know, I can't believe anyone thought this Incumbancy Protection Act was constitutional in the first place. I find corruption in politics as offensive as the next guy, but I really think that political speech should not be banned or even chilled, unless it comes under some other variety of unprotected speech (e.g., "You're oppressed, kill all of the Republicans living at _____________ right now"--that sort of thing).

Gosh, joe, there's no politically motivated reason for your response, is there? The whole point of the bill was to avoid an insanely huge chilling effect on political speech on the biggest public forum of them all--something I think even the FEC agrees with. It wasn't written to specifically exempt the Internet from laws of general applicability. Heck, despite all of the "Wild West" talk you used to hear about the web, the fact is that pretty much all of the laws that can apply on-line, do apply on-line (the remaining fly in the ointment being enforcement, of course). Of course, one of the side effects of this is to further distance "freedom of the press" rights from "freedom of speech" rights. Our political culture is so improved by limiting the number of voices "authorized" to talk about politics.

[Phil]

Meehan's examples are all laws that don't have an internet exemption. Child pornography is illegal in hard copy. It is also illegal online. False advertising (which falls under the heading "consumer safety laws") is illegal if done in a magazine. It is also illegal online.

So, taking this to its logical conclusion, the harmful activity that is currently illegal in print, and which this bill is intended to close the internet loophole for, is: ___________________________

Please fill in the blank.

[Akira MacKenzie]

So, taking this to its logical conclusion, the harmful activity that is currently illegal in print, and which this bill is intended to close the internet loophole for, is: ___________________________

Please fill in the blank.

...Carpel Tunnel Syndrome in bloggers?

[Pro Libertate]

That harmful activity is, Phil, allowing anything to prevent the re-election of incumbents. Or to let some wacky individual citizen have his say on the web and maybe influence an election or something. It's more prudent just to tell folks to go to some park and babble to the homeless people and the occasional bypasser. Just as effective as saying something on a blog, studies show.

[joe]

"Gosh, joe, there's no politically motivated reason for your response, is there?"

No, there were just some posters who seemed terribly confused by a rather straightforward point, and I thought I'd set them straight.

John, if regulating your ability to buy media is denying your right to free speech, does that mean regulating prostitution is denying your right to have sex? You can say anything you want in the 30 days before an election.

[Akira MacKenzie]

I suppose the New York Times and the Washington Post, since they supported killing this legislation, would not mind refraining from making any editorial comment on a pending election from now on?

I didn't think so.

[joe]

Phil, despite your best efforts to play dumb, I do not believe you are confused about why regulating campaign donations and expenditures have been created.

[fyodor]

joe's right about Meehan's use of metaphor, except for his own use of plural (once again)(at the time he used it) (as far as I can tell).

IF one grants that the campaign finance laws are fair and good and all, THEN it Meehan's metaphor makes perfect sense. Well, there might be reasons why the internet presents special problems to campaign finance that it doesn't present to child porn, but RC Dean didn't address that.

Offhand, the only reasons I know to opppose applying campaign finance law to the internet are the same ones for opposing it in general.

[joe]

"I suppose the New York Times and the Washington Post, since they supported killing this legislation, would not mind refraining from making any editorial comment on a pending election from now on?"

Actually, they cannot run paid advertisements before pending elections, either. It's the money, stupid.

[Akira MacKenzie]

"You can say anything you want in the 30 days before an election."

Just not on TV, radio, or the internet, or any other effective form of communication in this day and age.

What part of "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." don't you understand, joe?

[Phil]

Phil, despite your best efforts to play dumb, I do not believe you are confused about why regulating campaign donations and expenditures have been created.

So, you're going to fill in the blank, or . . . ?

[joe]

"Just not on TV, radio, or the internet, or any other effective form of communication in this day and age."

Sure you can. You just can't pay for it. It's the money, stupid.

[joe]

Phil,

No.

[Mike Kole]

Jason- It means that if Kos links to Dems it backs, it has essentially made a campaign contribution.

How long, then, until the news outlets cannot cover political campaign stump speeches or other events, lest they likewise be guilty of having made a campaign contribution?

This America sure is fading into the sunset.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Actually, they cannot run paid advertisements before pending elections, either.

But the paper can still make it's OWN "advertisment" just as long as it's called an "editorial?"

[ChrisO]

Well, so much for all of that "Western Democrat" malarkey.

[joe]

Yes, Akira, our legal system distinguished between "free speech" and "paid speech." It's pretty easy to tell the difference, between "paid speech" isn't "free."

Yeah, ChrisO, the unfettered blatherings of bloggers is a really big issue in Missoula, Boise, and Gallup, I hear.

[Akira MacKenzie]

It's the money, stupid.

First of all, stop calling me "stupid."

Secondly, when last I checked, it usually costs "money" to put express your opinion in anyway that is sure to get out to anyone.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Yes, Akira, our legal system distinguished between "free speech" and "paid speech." It's pretty easy to tell the difference, between "paid speech" isn't "free."

There is no distinction between "paid speech" and "free speech." Speech is speech.

[Phil]

I didn't think you would, joe. Expecting honest, consistent argument from you is like expecting a Kwanzaa card from David Duke.

Yes, Akira, our legal system distinguished between "free speech" and "paid speech." It's pretty easy to tell the difference, between "paid speech" isn't "free."

Wow. You've now managed to provide me with two of the funniest things I've ever read, in the same day. Tell me, in what meaningful way is the entire content of The New York Times not "paid speech?"

[joe]

'There is no distinction between "paid speech" and "free speech." Speech is speech.'

OK, see, I'm talking about American constitutional law. I don't know what you're talking about.

BTW, "It's the money, stupid" is not meant to insult your intelligence. It's a reference to a sign James Carville hung in the Clinton 92 campaign HQ, "It's the economy, stupid." His point was that some staffers were talking about the important issue around which the campaign was based.

[Pro Libertate]

Let's not kid ourselves here. The inability to pay for access to enough ears to make your speech effective takes away your ability to communicate at all. I suppose one option would be to take hostages before an election, then grant a lot of phone interviews to voice your political opinions to a national audience. At least that way, no one paid for your media access.

Although I know plenty of left-wingers who hate the campaign-finance reform laws, a number seem to think they're good, equating "money" with "Republican". That's so amazingly ignorant that I have to pause for a moment. Okay, if all of the evil corporations fund the GOP, and the downtrodden fund the Democrats, then how did the latter party control the country for most of the 20th century? And how come every Fortune 100 company I've worked for seemed indifferent to which party it gave its money to, so long as it got someone's ear?

[Phil]

That's beautiful, stylish way of eliding the "of the press" portion of the First Amendment, too, joe. While you're telling me how the advertiser- and subscriber- supported NYT is not "paid speech," you can also tell me how telling a newspaper or a blog what kinds of advertisements it can accept is not an abridgement of freedom of the press.

[joe]

Since you don't expect commentary from me, Phil, you won't be disappointed when I ignore you.

[joe]

"His point was that some staffers were talking AROUND the important issue around which the campaign was based." Makes sense that way. Because everyone on this thread is talking around the central issue behind campaign finance reform, the pay to play, dialing for dollars routines that the expensive, modern media campaigns require of officeholders.

[Akira MacKenzie]

OK, joe, if not the "paid speech" just how are the parties and their supporters supposed to get our respective messages out into the media and the public at large?

Telepathy, mayhap?

[joshua corning]

The only thing that is better then watching democrats forsake fundemental ideals held in the constitiution is watching joe defend thier reasoning for it.

[taktix]

joe,

They pay to print the "editorial" in the newspaper, since it cost money to print the newspaper. So newspapers make monetary contributions to campaigns.

It's more than the money, stupid.

And since when did the First Amendment say "Congress shall make no law abridging ONLY the freedom of speech OF NEWS ORGANIZATIONS"?

So we all have to become journalists to express our opinions? I guess I chose the right profession. Now if they'd just start paying us more than a pitance...

[James]

Unfortunately, well meaning people like Joe just don't have the forethought to imagine the eventual consequences of their meddling. This "paid speech" bs is a weak argument for abandoning the first amendment. Every goddamnned "news article" in the Times is paid for with ink, presstime, labor and etc.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Don't tell me, let me guess: 100% Public financing of elections?

Sorry. It's bad enough I have pay the salaries of politicians I didn't vote for, I don't see why should help keep them office.

[joe]

Akira,

The laws do not effect the candidates' campaigns.

Events, marches, handouts, letters to the editor - all of the methods of speech that don't have economic barriers to entry are still available, just as they were in 1792.

[Phil]

Oh, I expect commentary from you. I just expect most of it to be deflection and baloney. And avoiding questions when you get cornered, which is often.

But you're still redeemable. So, again: How is Congress telling a media outlet what kinds of advertisements it can accept not an abridgement of freedom of the press, and how is Congress telling an individual where and when he may place an advertisement not an abridgement of free speech?

. . . the pay to play, dialing for dollars routines that the expensive, modern media campaigns require of officeholders.

If you think this is going to level the playing field, you're insane. It's the Incumbency Protection Act.

"Mr. Editor? There's a Joe Nobody on the phone. He's running against Senator Sixterm, and since he can't buy an ad at this point in the campaign, wants to know if we could maybe devote a few column inches or an op-ed to his campaign."

"Um . . . tell him I'm at lunch."

[joe]

"They pay to print the "editorial" in the newspaper, since it cost money to print the newspaper."

The freedom of the press, like the freedom of individual speech, presupposed that media outlets are allowed to speak. The NYT can run its own copy. It just can't run other people's for payment.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Events, marches, handouts, letters to the editor...

You mean events that most people are likely to ignore.

This isn't 1792, joe.

[Pro Libertate]

I'm not on the attack here, but I have a serious question. How was the last election visibly different from any past election? The law was in effect then. Felt pretty much the same to me, but, hey, I'm ignorant. Is infringing on speech rights worth it if "influence peddling" keeps going on its merry way?

One question for joe: Do you think the blogs should be fully subject to McCain-Feingold? The FEC doesn't, even to the extent of wanting to defy a court order to treat them as such.

[James]

I didn't notice the modifier INDIDUAL speech in the first amendment, I believe it just mentions freedom of speech, period.

[Phil]

"Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, or of the press, provided that neither has any economic barriers to entry. Then, they're fair game." That last part must be in invisible ink on my copy.

Blogs don't have economic barriers to entry, either. Just for the record.

The NYT can run its own copy. It just can't run other people's for payment.

Sure it can, as long as it's for stereos and cars and Bloomingdales and McDonald's and Virgin Records and other important stuff. Just not for trivial things like who is going to have the power to make laws and deploy armies and stuff.

[James]

Make that individual

[Akira MacKenzie]

Blogs don't have economic barriers to entry, either.

Sure they do, you have to pay an ISP for internet access, don't you?

[Pro Libertate]

I wish we were a good and crazy libertarian blog sometimes, because someone really should say, "If they won't hear me speak, then they can listen to my gunfire" or something crazy like that. joe's Scalia-like references to 1792 kinda bring out the revolutionary in me (just kidding, joe).

[Phil]

Nope, you can probably go to your local public library and use Teh Internets for free.

[taktix]

joe,

I guess you missed the ONLY part of this sentence, so I'll make it more clear...

Since when did the First Amendment say "Congress shall make no law abridging -------->ONLY

[narciso]

Why are we surprised; the Dems gave us the Federal Communication Act, which is the
cornerstone of First Amendment regulation;
they also gave us the Espionage and Sedition
Acts.

[joe]

Pro Libertate,

I don't know. It's a complicated subject. This is yet another example of the difficulty in applying regulations based on a pre-internet world to the internet.

I'm not actually arguing an affirmative position here. Just knocking down some of the particularly weak counter-arguments that come up.

James, you'll notice, it doesn't mention any right to pay, or collect payment, in the First Amendment, either. This is why the government can ban prostitution, without running afoul of the privacy rights behind the Lawrence decision.

As much as you might not like it, when you pay for goods or services rendered, their legal status changes.

[Stephen Macklin]

There's an important distinction that is beeing missed here. It's not a paid vs unpaid speech. Its not even really about paying for ads. What it comes down to is BCRA treats speach as cash. Speaking in support of a candidate is considered the equivalent of making a contribution. Speak too much, ot to too many people, and you run the riskof illegally exceeding your maximum contribution limit.

[Akira MacKenzie]

As much as you might not like it, when you pay for goods or services rendered, their legal status changes.

Yes, because we can't have people PAYING for goods and services, that would be wrong.

[James]

McCain Feingold wasn't pre-internet. It won't be long before I can't contribute money to the NRA because they may spend it advocating.

[joe]

That's an affirmative argument I will make, Mr. Macklin: speech and cash should not be confused. Writing someone a check is not a speech act. Taking that check is not a speech act. If this basic concept - property isn't speech, it's property - hadn't been fumbled by the Supreme Court in the 70s, we wouldn't have all these problems.

But some people want to be able to buy and sell politicians, and the Court agreed they have a right to.

[taktix]

Pro Libertate,

The difference with this election was that McCain-Fiengold allowed for the largest amount of money EVER spent in an election via 527 groups (don't take my word for it, look it up).

So let's recap:

McCain-Feingold didn't get the money out of politics, as intended. It did, however, set the precident that government now has the authority to limit political speech.

Even if our currently elected officials are the the most benevolent bunch of cheeky-faced chums in the world, who is to say politicians elected in 2006 won't abuse this power? Or 2008?

[joe]

"McCain Feingold wasn't pre-internet." No, but its conception of media demonstrates a pre-internet mindset.

Akira, now you're just getting stupid. And not in a James Caville hanging a sign kind of way.

[Akira MacKenzie]

speech and cash should not be confused

Since speech costs money I fail to see your point.

[mitch]

Joe's strategy of saying, "It's the money, stupid," again and again is very clever. By saying "money" again and again he makes it sound like this legislation limiting speech and the press only applies to rich people, people with whom Democratic voters, whatever income or assets they may have, never identify with. This is like attacking tax cuts by calling them "a tax cut for the rich." Everybody who paid taxes got a tax cut, not just the rich, but if you say "tax cut for the rich" enough times people will identify the tax cuts with the rich, and, for most people, "the rich" are a sinsiter "other."

Calling a person "stupid" or showing contempt in other ways is also an effective strategy; not for convincing an opponent, but for intimidating third persons who are observing an argument and are undecided. Nobody wants to be exposed to ridicule, and by ridiculing one's opponents one can effectively discourage undecideds from siding with one's opponents.

Joe is a cunning opponent for the libertarians and conservatives here.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Akira, now you're just getting stupid.

Ahem...

[joe]

"Since speech costs money I fail to see your point."

Not all speech costs money. Only the kind that does.

[taktix]

"it doesn't mention any right to pay, or collect payment, in the First Amendment, either."

Actually, the Bill of Rights does address this, in the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

i.e. if it ain't in this document, it is a right of the people or the states

[Akira MacKenzie]

"Not all speech costs money. Only the kind that does."

If it is to be effective and reach to maximum number of people, speech costs money.

[taktix]

Look how joe doesn't respond, because he's been pwned!

[Yogi]

Nope, you can probably go to your local public library and use Teh Internets for free.

Yeah, but the librarian gets all hot and bothered, and not the good kind, when I look at porn there.

[joe]

Where's this "reach the maximum number of people" language, Akira? You don't just have the right to speak, you have the right to reach the maximum number of people (as long as have lots of money)?

[taktix]

Nevermind the pwned thing.

By the way, does anyone know of any undiscovered islands I can move to when the government comes to arrest me for Speech Code Violations?

[Jason Ligon]

I don't get what this really means. So, if Kos says the Republican is a poopie head within 30 days of an election, has he made a contribution? If so, how do you figure out the cost of the contribution? The marginal cost of posting the message is less than a penny.

Since many blogs aren't commercially self sustaining, does that alter the equation? If some boy band teen blogger says, "Don't, like, vote for fascist Republicans," does THAT count? I gather that even some big name blogs aren't self sustaining, like maybe Marginal Revolution. I just don't understand how this can work in a world reasonable people would want to live in.

[Jason Ligon]

joe:

Are you suggesting that any speech that costs money can be regulated?

Also, if the damned amendment was supposed to protect anything, it is the expression of political views.

[James]

Jason, Exactly. There is no way to enforce CFR on the internet, and hopefully the differences in enforceability will doom the idiotic concept of not discussing politics near elections.

[Stephen Macklin]

Leaving aside that the right to free speech has absolutely nothing to do with how much money you have, speech - even speach to a large audience doesn't have to cost a dime.

It costs me precisely nothing to maintain a blog. That blog has a potential audience of hundreds of thousdands - even millions (in my dreams). I make no revenue from this blog. There are no financial transactions involved in any way with its existence.

Yet under BCRA if I advocated for a candidate that advocacy could be considered a contribution. If the audience were large enough (i.e. much larger than my current readership) the value of that contribution could be said to excede the maximum allowable contributiuon to a candidate.

How can this not be seen as abridging my right to free speech?

And let us not forget, the First Amendment does not grant us a right to free speech. It assumes we have the right and is intended to protect it from the government.

[Akira MacKenzie]

You don't just have the right to speak, you have the right to reach the maximum number of people (as long as have lots of money)?

So in otherwords, unless I can pull a newspaper publishing company or a radio/TV broadcast facility out of my ass, my right to opin on political matters becomes null and void if I have to pay someone who does have such resources to distribute it?

[Pro Libertate]

I guess one thing that makes this so unpleasant is that McCain-Feingold has been upheld as good (for the government) law. All three branches agree, so it's gots to be good. But I think we can all agree that ideally, all of our voices should be heard, particularly on political matters. To me, that's one of the reasons I favored something like this bill--blogs and web sites in general provide a much larger forum for public voices.

Even now, with the Internet being securely in the mainstream, it's hardly under the control of the government or of the "money" interests (be those corporate, union, advocacy group, or back to government again). And I'd rather just leave the door open for any kind of screeching voice--paid for or not--that might want to sound out across the web. Maybe I'd be mildly sympathetic to some sort of advertising restriction for the broadcast media, since they are tainted already by regulation, but probably not even then.

Just to put the brakes on any more quotes from the First Amendment, remember, what that meant in the late 18th century was a far cry from what we have now. Freedom of speech, religion, and of thought really hit its apex sometime in the early-to-mid 20th century, thanks to some good court decisions. Things are still pretty good, of course, but they could be a lot better.

[deron]

What did the Republican's want to protect with this (it ain't free speech - liars - regardless of the name), and where exactly did the Democrats think this was going?

[Jason Ligon]

joe:

I have to say you are bumming me out on this one. We need the left to respect the first, and expansively at that. You really don't see a problem with this idea on liberal grounds?

[James]

Akira, That's why I keep giving to the NRA. So that they'll have enough cash to buy a tv station that will bash Democrats between hunting shows.

[joe]

"Are you suggesting that any speech that costs money can be regulated?"

No, I'm suggesting that the payment of money during political campaigns can be regulated.

"Also, if the damned amendment was supposed to protect anything, it is the expression of political views." You can express your political views all you want.

"There is no way to enforce CFR on the internet,"

Maybe.

"...and hopefully the differences in enforceability will doom the idiotic concept of not discussing politics near elections." You know, some of us actually manage to discuss things that don't appear on the magic glowing box.

"my right to opin on political matters becomes null and void if I have to pay someone who does have such resources to distribute it?" Opine all you want. No one's stopping you.

Jason, I see lots of problems. It's thorny issue. I'm just knocking down some weak arguments.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Opine all you want. No one's stopping you.

Just as long as it's not 30 days before an election?

[Akira MacKenzie]

Opine all you want. No one's stopping you.

Just as long as it's not 30 days before an election?

[joe]

You see, Akira, you don't just want to express your views. You want to pay other people to express them for you. In order to influence a political campaign, in the manner that the people writing checks want.

[James]

So is Google going to become the political speech cop of the internet? I better go pick up a few shares today.

[joe]

"Just as long as it's not 30 days before an election?"

You can stand on the steps of the Capitol building and chant "Vote for Ron Paul" for five hours a day in the month leading up to an election. Say anything you want.

[James]

Would calling a candidate a space alien on h&r count as advocacy for his opponent? And how much would that be worth on the speech market?

[James]

I guess Tim would be the final arbitor of what is and isn't speech of political value.

[Jason Ligon]

"Are you suggesting that any speech that costs money can be regulated?"

No, I'm suggesting that the payment of money during political campaigns can be regulated.

Payment to parties that are not the candidates to express a freely held political view at the precise time it is most significant?

[Akira MacKenzie]

You see, Akira, you don't just want to express your views. You want to pay other people to express them for you.

Whether or not it's me or a proxy it's still my point of view. Newspapers and broadcasters aren't going to give me or my proxy space for free, ergo, I need to give them money first. I paid for the time/column space. Don't tell me what I can put there.

[James]

I am for banning all political spam, especially since all the emails are coming from a state I no longer vote in.

[ChrisO]

Joe seems to be missing (or ignoring) the whole "in-kind" problem, though I maybe I missed it.

It's one thing to say I can't take money from a candidate to say certain things on his behalf, but quite another to say that I can't, of my own volition, advocate on a candidate's behalf because it would be seen as an "in-kind" contribution to that candidate, even though I receive nothing in return. I don't like either scenario, but the latter one is positively sinister.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

Events, marches, handouts, letters to the editor - all of the methods of speech that don't have economic barriers to entry are still available, just as they were in 1792.

Arguing that events and marches don't have economic barriers to entry is just stupid. It takes money to organize marches, etc. That anyone conceded this point makes me shudder.

[R C Dean]

The freedom of the press, like the freedom of individual speech, presupposed that media outlets are allowed to speak. The NYT can run its own copy. It just can't run other people's for payment.

So, based on this argument, the NYT has a Constitutionally protected right to print a newspaper, but Congress is free to ban the NYT from paying anyone to distribute that newspaper. Because if the NYT is paying someone to stock or deliver its paper, then that person is distributing NYT's speech for money, just as the NYT is distributing someone else's speech for money when it takes a paid ad.

"Are you suggesting that any speech that costs money can be regulated?"

No, I'm suggesting that the payment of money during political campaigns can be regulated.

But the question is, the payment of money to who, and for what? If what is being prohibited is the payment of money to distribute speech, then the First Amendment is reduced to the right to converse with people within range of your unaided voice, because any distribution of your thoughts beyond that range requires the expenditure of money.

Is that really all you think the First Amendment guarantees, joe?

And, there is absolutely no reason why any restriction on speech during campaigns can't be expanded indefinitely. The First Amendment contains no language that would support a limit on speech only during campaigns. Any restriction that is Constitutional during October of even numbered years is Constitutional 24/7, as far as I can tell. If you doubt this, please refer me to the language in the Consitution that says otherwise.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

BTW, in 1792 newspapers and handbills existed, and these too cost lots of money to print then.

Then again, you've already demonstrated your lack about the history of colonial once already today. Why stop at once? 🙂

[ChrisO]

Oh, and by the way, Joe, as a son of Wyoming, let me assure you that advocating such draconian speech regulation on everyday folks is a big no-no if the Dems want to appeal to Westerners. Freedom of speech is taken pretty seriously in that part of the world. Maybe more so than anywhere else.

[Ubertater]

When I give money to a party, or candidate, I'm not giving it to them so they can buy a swimming pool, it's with the implicit understanding that they are going to buy speech. The same reason I give money to the Red Cross with the implicit understanding that they will help poor people. In politics, money is speech.

(ps, I'm new here go easy on me)

[Phil]

Contra his proud assertions, I haven't actually seen joe "knock down" a single argument, aside from simply arguing by assertion that "it's different if you pay for it," but if it makes him feel better to think he did, just indulge him, kids.

This is why the government can ban prostitution, without running afoul of the privacy rights behind the Lawrence decision.

I'm pretty certain that prostitution was illegal for decades, if not centuries, prior to the government recognizing anything even remotely close to the privacy rights acknowledged in Lawrence, let alone Roe or Griswold, and for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the reasons you assert.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

Jason, I see lots of problems. It's thorny issue. I'm just knocking down some weak arguments.

You've knocked down nothing except any shred of respect folks might have had for you here. I mean really, claiming that there aren't economic barriers to entry for marches is just dumb.

[R C Dean]

Let's apply the McCain/Feingold/joe approach to Constitutional rights more broadly. That approach seems to be, the Constitution protects your right to X, but does not protect your right to expend any resources on X.

So, under this approach, you have a right to an abortion, but Congress or the states can prohibit you from paying for an abortion, and can prohibit a doctor from accepting payment for an abortion.

You have a right to keep and bear arms, but no one is allowed to pay for or accept money for a gun.

You have the right to print a newspaper, but etc.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

This is why the government can ban prostitution, without running afoul of the privacy rights behind the Lawrence decision.

The reason that prostitution can still be punished is because our society wants it to be punished; Lawrence was all about changing perceptions of what is or is not moral. Readining anything higher into is just plain dumb.

[Hakluyt]

R.C. Dean,

Campaign finance "reformers" like joe have these pie in the sky notions about how they can "fix" campaign financing in the U.S. See, they want this extensive government to do all these "neat" things and then get totally pissed when that extensive government gets used for means they don't like. Thus a way to "fix" that problem is to control the money, while keeping the government large. This is what is known as an unintended consequence. joe and his ilk are just dumb to realize it, that's all.

[Hakluyt]

Suffice it to say that if a government regulation exists, joe will always support it.

[R C Dean]

The fundamental fallacy of campaign finance reform is the idea that you can separate money from power.

You can't. No one ever has, no one ever will.

If the confluence of money and power bothers you (and it should), you have two options, theoretically.

You can impoverish your country via some extreme egalitarian means. But even societies that have tried this route have universally wound up with a power elite that is (relatively) wealthy.

Or you can reduce the power that can be wielded by the state.

[deron]

Do I have this right...

If the law had passed I could get paid to argue vociferously in favor of candidate x on a blog?

But...
Since the law didn't pass I can still argue, but I can't get paid? Does that include any payment? Such as clicks from the happy humpy muscle guy? Or, is it specifically payments from political sources?

[James]

Hakluyt, I believe I already said that in my first post.

[joe]

Here's another bit of inanity that the shallower among us need to liberated from: the idea that the "what part of 'shall make now law' don't you understand?" argument is worth anything. Or its twin, the "that part must have been written in invisible ink."

Where's the language in the First Amendment about shouting Fire in a crowded theater? Where's the language in the second about mental patients and young children? As much as you might like to convince yourself that the absolutist language in the Constitution is an unanswerable argument, the reality is that every "rights" amendment contains an implied Public Policy exemption. That's why we don't need an amendment to ban "speech" than involves waving your genitals at children.

Now, what are the limits of this exemption? How do we determine them? Those are interesting questions, and still quite open. But transcribing the words "shall not be infringed" doesn't do anything to answer those questions.

[Pro Libertate]

Hakluyt, that's my main reason for being a libertarian. I'm all for natural rights and all that, but it really comes down to a utilitarian perspective. I'm less likely to suffer some horrible fate or have things taken away from me if the people in power have limited power. That's why I advocate limited government in the first place, and that's why here, I don't like the government telling me what I can say (or how I can say it) about it.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

"...shouting fire..." - Not political speech.

"...mental patients and young children..." - I fyou happen to read (I know, I can always hope) Blackstone you'll get your answer. 🙂

Thanks for the giant strawman though.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

BTW, I've detailed to you on a number of occassions the sources that you need to seek out to understand the nature of the individual gun right. So far, you've refused to do so.

Pro Libertate,

Oh certainly. I've been a rule utilitarian for many years, and the best means to a happy society is the libertarian way.

[joe]

ChrisO, the "in kind" issue is, indeed, a corker. I haven't addressed that issue at all.

RC, "So, based on this argument, the NYT has a Constitutionally protected right to print a newspaper, but Congress is free to ban the NYT from paying anyone to distribute that newspaper. Because if the NYT is paying someone to stock or deliver its paper, then that person is distributing NYT's speech for money, just as the NYT is distributing someone else's speech for money when it takes a paid ad." No, all of those people who work for the NYT are considered part of the NYT. It is still the NYT, with its speech and press rights, speaking for itself.

BTW, blowing off Hak and Phil entirely was the smartest thing I ever did. Makes the conversations so much better. The girly freakouts whenever you disagree with them just aren't worth it.

[Akira MacKenzie]

As much as you might like to convince yourself that the absolutist language in the Constitution is an unanswerable argument, the reality is that every "rights" amendment contains an implied Public Policy exemption.

Well, if it doesn't mean what it says, then the Constitution isn't worth the crinkly yellow paper it's printed on.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

BTW, anyone (like you) who can't differentiate political from non-political speech is an idiot.

[joe]

Akira, if you don't like our Constitution, leave.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

Blowing me off just shows what sort of spineless coward you are. I've just eviscerated everything you've written. Its fun to plaster you all about the place and see such cowardly non-responses. 🙂

[Hakluyt]

joe,

Or change it. Apparently joe is unaware of the Constitution's language regarding amendments. 🙂

[Hakluyt]

joe,

BTW, speaking of girly freakouts, telling someone something a kin to "America, love it or leave it" is about as girly a freakout as you can get. 🙂 You're a joke and the fun part is that I get to laugh at you.

[joe]

See, I knew I didn't have read anything past my last post right away. 🙂

[Hakluyt]

Akira,

joe really has no depth regarding the Constitution. Its best just to assume that he doesn't know what he is talking about. After all, I've schooled him so many times in the past he now refuses to engage with me for fear of more embarressment.

[James]

H&R needs to hire some new government control freaks to spruce up the site. The quality of arguments from Joe is insufficient to pique the interest the even the least intelligent among us. Of course, paying a competent foil might run afoul of CFR.

[Pro Libertate]

joe, obviously from my earlier post, I'm somewhat reluctant to treat the First Amendment as some sort of absolute protection of free expression--it isn't--but I also hesitate to reduce out of the equation the belief that speech limitations should be truly rare. It's one thing when you're talking about criminal activities like child porn or perjury, but it's another altogether when you're talking about political speech. The Supreme Court took a complete 180 on its political speech precedent with its opinion on McCain-Feingold, so we don't even have tradition supporting the current state of restrictive speech affairs. I get a little nervous simply weighing something that might be a "public good" versus individual rights. That should only happen, if at all, in extremely limited ways and for specific purposes.

[joe]

I understand there are some blogs that have a feature that allow you to set the display so you won't see certain people's comments.

That would be sweet.

[Hakluyt]

Everyone else:

Feel free to lambast joe with my arguments. He can't avoid everyone. 🙂

[Phil]

Anybody who would write what joe did in his 5:47, then accuse others of "girly freakouts" (I'd love to unpack the sexist/homophobic baggage from that particular trunk, by the way) is blessedly unburdened by any sense of irony.

No, all of those people who work for the NYT are considered part of the NYT. It is still the NYT, with its speech and press rights, speaking for itself.

Since when do newsstands and distributors work for the NYT?

(Real answer: Never. joe's answer: Some bunch of nonsense.)

BTW, blowing off Hak and Phil entirely was the smartest thing I ever did.

I actually believe this, which doesn't really say alot for your smarts.

Now, what are the limits of this exemption? How do we determine them

Apparently, we do so by repeatedly asserting, without any external evidence, "Money makes it magically different!"

[Viking Moose]

joe:

i actually don't get the "implied policy", either. are you thinking of particular writings or references by Madison et al?

(it's interesting, because i've heard several references to "implied X" in the constitution recently)

thanks!
cheers!

[Phil]

Could you do something else smart and learn to use the damned italic tag, by the way? You're a college grad, it shouldn't be tough.

[joe]

Pro Libertate,

I agree that restrictions on speech should be rare. But 1) I don't believe writing a check is speech, and 2) I believe the "pay to play" system, and the structural advantage that accrues to the better-funded party, are corrosive to our democracy. Those are very important public purposes in my mind.

In the minds of those who are more comfortable with plutocracy, obviously not so much.

[Hakluyt]

Pro Libertate,

McCain-Feingold is an outgrowth of other campaign finance laws from the 1970s. They were a reponse to issues found with Nixon's campaign financing. As you can see the law has continually failed to do what was expected of it.

When joe talks about constitutional law what he means is law originating in th 1970s; specifically to Buckley v. Valeo (which joe has never read and couldn't tell you the fact pattern of without taking many minutes looking it up on wikipedia).

[joe]

viking moose,

'i actually don't get the "implied policy",'

Sure you do. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is speech, yet you can Constitutionally be arrested for it. The government can ban the sale of firearms to paranoid schizophreniacs without running afoul of the Second Amendment. When there is a strong enough public purpose, even the most uninfringeable rights can be infringed upon.

Now, do the purposes of McCain-Feingold qualify? Who decides this question? How do they decide this question? Those questions remain open.

[James]

Joe, If you don't think that the check I send to the Club for Growth turns into speech then you're even dumber than I thought you were.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

Do you believe that burning a U.S. flag is speech? Differentiate that from writing a check.

What makes writing a check "not speech?"

...I believe the "pay to play" system, and the structural advantage that accrues to the better-funded party, are corrosive to our democracy.

Nothing that CFR's have ever done has stopped the flow of money and nothing. The large size of government is the reason for all the moola. Reduce the size and power and you'll reduce the moola.

[Phil]

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is speech, yet you can Constitutionally be arrested for it.

Not, one assumes, if the theater is actually on fire.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

When there is a strong enough public purpose, even the most uninfringeable rights can be infringed upon.

The reason why the fire and the schizophrenic examples are what they are is because that's how they were in 1791. You seem to think that mere public purpose shifts the nature of an amendment, which if a very dangerous, foolish idea that was reject by Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. I enjoy watching you so far out of your depth. Its fun to watch you struggle.

[Pro Libertate]

Certainly, other liberal countries have taken a much more restrictive view on permissible speech at election time--particularly when it comes to funding (the UK being a great example). My disgust and contempt for most politicians has made me even wonder about that option here, but I keep coming back to the fact that members of a free society are going to get their voice heard somehow. Behind the scenes, through legal exceptions (um, 527s anyone?), or in some other clever and not-so-clever ways.

In the end, we're not as plutocratic as all that. We have a huge variety of voices and interests in this country, and virtually all of them seem to get money to say their piece from somewhere. For instance, I had to deal with major AARP lobbying while working in the banking world (what, the AARP can fight the banking industry? Yep). Although both parties have a pretty equal share of corporate supporters, the Democrats wielded extra power for a gob of the last century because of union money. I agree that we're primarily driven by the idea that commerce is good (a principle I agree with, incidentally), but it's really hard to point to any companies or industries that consistently get their way all the time. Look at the oil industry--they can't even build refineries in the U.S., with all of their influence.

[James]

Is my Reason subscription speech? I'm helping a small part of the press advocate. I PAYED for it, yet fortunately Reason is protected by a stronger part of the first amendment.

[Hakluyt]

Phil,

See, joe is comparing apples to organges. He is comparing non-political speech with political speech.

[Eric the .5b]

So, let's say someone wanted to spread the idea that the candidate for some election who supports CFR is an idiot and should not be elected.

Here's a non-exhaustive list of things someone could do:

1) Stand on the street corner and suggest this message to passers-by.

2) Hand out one-page fliers printed on that person's old inkjet printer at home.

3) Hand out fliers that the person paid to have printed because the printer broke.

4) Get some friends to help hand out those fliers

5) Pay some people to help hand out those fliers.

6) Pay a newspaper to print that message in its next edition.

7) Ask one's friend, the editor, to print that message in its next edition for free.

8) Be a newspaper editor and write an editorial in that paper with that message.

9) Have a sympathetic staff writer write an editorial in that paper with that message.

10) Pay a radio station to run a spoken version of that message.

11) Host a program on that radio station and spend the program explaining that message in great detail.

12) Post the message on that person's blog or homemade website.

13) Pay someone who knows how to design a website to format the message so it doesn't look like this.

14) Be a member of Congress and take advantage of tax-payer funded campaign resources to do many of the above and more.

All of these things enjoy very different legal statuses due to campaign finance law. I think it's instructive to look at which actions people are trying to regulate. I also think most of the distinctions are absolutely farcical...

[Eric the .5b]

Odd. That last link should have been to this

[Hakluyt]

Eric the .5b,

Campaign finance laws benefit lawmakers. True believers like joe here are suckers for laws which are corrupt from the start.

[joe]

James, I know that your check "turns into speech." But is isn't speech itself - it's commerce. You're buying that speech, not expressing it.

"Is my Reason subscription speech?" No.

Pro Libertade, the fact that there are well funded voices on both ends of a unidimensional political continuum does not mean that all points of view have equal oppotunity to be heard, or even to be heard in proportion to their supporters' numbers and intensity. That there are rich powerhouses on the left does not mean that the little guy has a level playing field with the big guy.

[James]

Commerce my ass.

[Eric the .5b]

You know, I can't believe anyone thought this Incumbancy Protection Act was constitutional in the first place.

It's not really about free speech for the people who voted for it. It's about tweaking campaign laws in a way that you hope hurts the other party more than yours.

[James]

Like Rosa Parks wouldn't have been able to get an hour or so on CNN, no charge.

[Phil]

And he never will, joe, at least not as a result of the laws we're talking about here, for the reasons I alluded to above. Money or no money, major media simply are not going to devote airtime or column inches to candidates who are not Republicans or Democrats*, and are going to devote more airtime -- not purposefully, but simply by virtue of the way news works -- to incumbents than to challengers. The news can talk a good game about democracy and fairness, but they know that Ds and Rs are the only electable parties, and that's who the news is going to be about. What's more, they stand to benefit from doing so, as they will then be able to point to their coverage of the candidates when lobbying for preferential treatment under the law.

*(Except, generally, in a "Look at these flakes kind of way," unless there's a particular oddity factor ["20-year-old-challenger runs for mayor"], or unless the candidate is himself notable [Perot] or it otherwise fits some standard news narrative.)

[Hakluyt]

James,

joe will never explain why it isn't speech (and the idea that just because something is part of commerce doesn't make it speech fully explodes the idea that joe knows what he is talking about - the Supreme Court since the 19th century has recognized that simply because something is part of commerce doesn't take away its nature as speech - joe is an idiot).

[JDM]

"BTW, in 1792 newspapers and handbills existed, and these too cost lots of money to print then."

They were also nakedly partisan. Which bears here on the intent of the law.

[Pro Libertate]

Pro Libertade, the fact that there are well funded voices on both ends of a unidimensional political continuum does not mean that all points of view have equal oppotunity to be heard, or even to be heard in proportion to their supporters' numbers and intensity. That there are rich powerhouses on the left does not mean that the little guy has a level playing field with the big guy.

I won't argue the point that there are winners and losers out there, because it's true enough. But I don't think the solution is giving the biggest guy--the government--more power over both the little guy and the big guy. I might have been more receptive to campaign-finance reform if it had come pre-Internet, cable, satellite, more to come, because the issue back then was access to radio, print, and television, period. No one but the big guys really had access then anyway, so shutting up small voices like blogs was a nonissue. Speaking of blogs and personal web sites in general, aren't they your little guy for the most part? Why not support protecting them? In any case, "fairness" is hard to legislate. The best we can hope for is equal treatment under the law.

I'm not sanguine about distinctions about funding speech and directly exercising it. It leads to a gatekeeper approach for any mass speech, which strikes me as a dangerous doctrine. Money's fungible--put the nickels and dimes together and a bunch of little guys can buy as much speech in practice as GM.

[Phil]

It just struck me now how hypocritical it is for the government (and the major media) to argue that blogs should be treated the same as everyone else for the purposes of campaign finance laws, but shouldn't be treated the same as everyone else for journalistic shield laws. Obvious, but hypocritical; do everything to handcuff the democratizing media, and nothing to help them.

[Pro Libertate]

Oops, Eric, was that my misspelling of "incumbency"? Too bad. Now I, too, am an idiot.

[deron]

Would my Reason subscription become speech if I say bought 30,000 subscriptions, and told Matt Welch what to write?

[Eric the .5b]

And here is the crux of the problem, not every voice does need to be heard

When we're talking about the government muzzling speech, I don't even see why that's an issue.

And it is muzzling speech. Or would a ban on doctors accepting money for administering abortions be pro-choice? What about a law against buying food? Would that be solely about money and have nothing to do with food?

It's just a farce.

[Rod]

Now, do the purposes of McCain-Feingold qualify?

No.

Who decides this question?

The very politicians who benefit from the restrictions.

How do they decide this question?

By whatever rationale that permits them to restrict speech counter to their own interests.

[Seamus]

"'Is my Reason subscription speech?' No."

Well, if it isn't speech, then I guess it must be commerce. And if it's commerce, then I guess it can be regulated. And if it can be regulated, then I guess there's no constitutional impediment to requiring the publishers of magazines like Reason to distribute them for free or not at all.

[Eric the .5b]

Oops, Eric, was that my misspelling of "incumbency"? Too bad. Now I, too, am an idiot.

Eh, typopskjs happen.

[ME]

So let me see if I got this right:

According to those who hold the position that the BCRA is constitutional:

Law that prohibits me from paying some other person or legal entity to put out a political statement for me his/her/its medium = constitutional

Law that prohibits me from distributing political fliers myself if I paid money for the ink and paper = unconstitutional

Law that prohibits me from paying someone to hand out the same fliers from the previous example = probably constitutional

Do I understand the position correctly so far?

If not what am I missing? If so how about this:

A hypothetical law prohibits me from hiring pilot who owns his own plane to fly me around the country for a few months if I intend to make political speeches everywhere I go. Is such a law constitutional?

Also does it matter whether or not I say the name of, or refer to, any particular politicians in any of my political statements?

[Paul]

OK, geniuses.

Meehan's examples are all laws that don't have an internet exemption. Child pornography is illegal in hard copy. It is also illegal online. False advertising (which falls under the heading "consumer safety laws") is illegal if done in a magazine. It is also illegal online.

Is that really so hard?

I'm trying, Ringo, I'm trying real hard to not prove Godwin's law true here... so I need a moment....

Ok. I'll spell it out for ya, real simple like.

The First Amendment was abolished in magazines and in print, but we (the royal we) were thinking that we'd hold the line on the internet. You're right Joe, we were foolish. We were foolish in that we thought we could keep our houses, stop the illegal searches, grow plants in our own homes for our own consumption, talk about politicians, and do, well, many other things that make us Free(tm). But unfortunately, our version of freedom is becoming startlingly European: We're free to vote... and that's it. We're not free to talk about our vote, why we vote, or who we're voting for... but we vote- so I guess we're all free. My bad.

Paul

[Paul]

I wonder if people like Joe and Jennifer and Gaius who always on here yapping that the dark night of facism is falling on America because Bush invaded Iraq or locked up a few people in Guantonimo Bay are going to say about this?

Unfortunately, what these *trying to remain tactful* people don't understand is their ability to speak about the war, Bush, the dark night of fascism, especially as it relates to...wait for it... a particular candidate, is becoming ILLEGAL!

Paul

[Paul]

"I suppose the New York Times and the Washington Post, since they supported killing this legislation, would not mind refraining from making any editorial comment on a pending election from now on?"

Actually, they cannot run paid advertisements before pending elections, either. It's the money, stupid.

Exactly, stupid. Another lesson in economics is in dire need. It costs money to produce a newspaper. By putting it in print, they've paid for their own advertisement in the form of an editorial. Let me requote: It's the money, asshole.

Paul

[James]

Since I do indeed own a label printing press, am I allowed to print anti-candidate labels under the freedom of the press part of the first amendment?

[Paul]

Since I do indeed own a label printing press, am I allowed to print anti-candidate labels under the freedom of the press part of the first amendment?

Yes, you just can't show them to anyone.

[joshua corning]

"You see, Akira, you don't just want to express your views. You want to pay other people to express them for you. In order to influence a political campaign, in the manner that the people writing checks want."

Umm what was that about sticks and stones but words may curupt your mind to vote for people who hold political views that joe doesn't agree with.

The influence is only speach joe this is not taking your land or tax under a gun. The only way speach can influance, payed for or not, is by convincing...no amount of money can do that...it can only bring a point of view. Money in no way "influances" conviction.

[James]

Although my press is commercial, don't we all own our own printing machines these days?

[joshua Corning]

"Thanks to commenter Joshua Corning for the tip."

should read "subscriber Joshua Corning" becouse everyone should know that I paid Matt to write what he writes. 🙂

and isn't what he writes constitutionaly protected?

[James]

Since I can legally advocate politics with my commercial press I should say NANANABOOBOO. But I really don't feel too good about it.

[Jason Sonenshein]

Make no mistake about it, this was almost strictly partyline vote. Only 8 Republicans voted against the amendment.

No, John. Take a look at the roll call. Thirty-eight Republicans voted against the bill. Forty-six Democrats voted for it. The Senate version of the bill is sponsored by Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D - Nv.)

As a Democrat, I'm disappointed in the Democratic members of Congress who voted against this bill. I'm less likely to support those Democrats than I otherwise would be. However, for Republicans to paint this as a party-line vote is dishonest.

[joe]

Pro Libertate, "But I don't think the solution is giving the biggest guy--the government--more power over both the little guy and the big guy."

Short of armed rebellion, that's pretty much the only thing that has ever produced a level playing field.

"Speaking of blogs and personal web sites in general, aren't they your little guy for the most part?" Yes, up until the point that a particular blogger becomes an operative of a campaign. Then he's an arm of one of the big guys.

Seamus, can you think of any other regulation that requires a producer to distribute their product free of charge to all? No? What was your point again?

[Pro Libertate]

There's another right implicated by all of this, too, which is the right of association. I have a vague recollection of that being raised in Buckley v. Valeo, but I only read that case in law school, years ago. Hakluyt referred to it earlier; perhaps he can chime in on this point.

I'd like to be a Blogger Operative. Like that guy in Serenity. Evil, but with good intentions 🙂 Honestly, joe, one of the reasons I must oppose you (aside from my bourgeois pragmatism), is that I think this whole thing will devolve into a lot of labeling, namecalling, and quibbling. I'd bet large sums that the FEC specifically wants to avoid dealing with the Internet more because of the horrible swamp of complaints it'd have to wade through than for any high and mighty "voice of the people" reason.

If we had a perfect machine intelligence (or God or an alien, if you prefer) running things, what would it do? Assuming its prime directive was to maximize human happiness, that is.

[Phil]

Yes, up until the point that a particular blogger becomes an operative of a campaign.

What point is that?

[Pro Libertate]

The point where he becomes effective, of course. Key signs to look for are an abrupt ceasing of all references to The Simpsons, strange removal of words identified previously by Mr. G. Carlin, and the disappearance of that Suicide Girls ad.

[Phil]

Heh. Indeed.

[jdog]

I assert that this blog post, that you now right in middle of reading, is worth $4000.

[Jason Ligon]

joe:

Campaign finance reform does not produce a level playing field. It creates barriers to entry in the political arena because the well known already win the PR war by fiat.

There are two major parties. Last time I checked, neither was lacking in PR funds. Who is not being represented on this unfair field you are suggesting and how does McCain Feingold address whatever inequity you are seeing?

I think you see fully well that you are stomping on a freedom of speech, but you feel there is a public good exception that needs to be carved out here. You don't sound too convinced yourself about the notion that paying for speech isn't speech, and you would hate it like hell if a commerce standard were used off election cycle to limit what someone could pay to get out in a newspaper.

I recognize fire in the theater and all that, but this is no shit political speech during an election. The amendment has to be built to protect at least that, doesn't it?

[Hakluyt]

Jason Ligon,

You don't sound too convinced yourself about the notion that paying for speech isn't speech...

He'd actually have to an argument to support his notion first before he could sound confident. So far all he's offered is an unadorned circular argument on the matter. Well, that and he stupidly claimed that because commerce was involved that means it isn't speech.

[Hakluyt]

Jason Ligon,

You should realize that its all about the "evil corporations."

[deron]

Joe

Do you think campaign finance reforms have been a success? Are they justified?

Just asking. I've read lots of posts about what you think, but about 3/4 of them aren't from you.

[The Real Bill]

I'll never understand this "shouting fire in a theater" thing. It's not the words that are criminal, it's the intent. Someone who shouts "fire" in a theater when there is none is purposefully and maliciously trying to cause a panic that will in all likelihood severely injure or kill. This is the crime, not the words. There is absolutely no first amendment violation or exception by criminalizing this act.

It's similar to the difference between someone saying they wish someone was dead or telling a hit man to kill that person. The first is free speech; the second is conspiracy to murder.

[bigbigslacker]

So is it OK to call people and tell them who you think they should vote for? What if its a long distance call, or you are using a cell phone during peak hours? Just because I can afford to take time off work to campaign doesn't mean everyone can. What about the poor underpaid illegal immigrant that must work 30 hours per day just to pay rent? I understand it is OK to hand out flyers, but would these have to be flyers that were printed for free with stolen paper and ink? Or is it OK to spend a certain amount on these traditional sort of supplies, maybe under $5? And would I have to ride my bicycle while passing them out? A poor person can't afford to print stuff on their laser jet, but a powerful rich guy like me can unfairly print off hundreds of pages, even thousands. That's just plain unfair. There oughta be law!

[G. Gray]

joe-

Your midday is someone else's midnight, someone else's sundown and even someone else's sunup. Do you know that time is a simultaneous 4 corner square that rotates to a 4 day time cube within 1 - 24 hour rotation of Earth? You are educated stupid and unable to know Nature's 4-Day Time Cube!

Greenwich Time is a Lie!

[ME]

bigbigslacker is I think getting at the same kind of point I am. What kind of quid pro quos facilitating speech or expression are ok (and constitutional) to regulate according to BCRA advocates? I also would ask if the regulations only apply to statements with references to specific people in office or runing for office. Can I spend as much as I want to take out ads on TV attacking drug prohibition?

[RDale]

Not one bit of campaign finance law does anything at all to 'level the playing field'. All it does is drive the money to alternative outlets and loopholes, and those are engineered such that they provide a clear bias in favor of those who already have the money and position to take advantage of those alternatives.

In other words, if you're already playing the game, you're in, but if you're not part of the game, so sorry, no joy for you, ever (unless of course, you funnel a substantial pecuniary inducement to us and we'll deal you in).

Whether intentional or not (and by all odds, it is intentional), every single bit of campaign finance regulation has, as their primary effect (and apparently, as an actual goal), the entrenchment of the current incumbent interests at the expense of smaller parties and individuals, by raising the bar so high as to make their involvement practically nonexistent.

The only ethical alternative (especially in the realm of politics) is to allow any individual or group the ability to speak on any subject, in any manner, and at any cost that group or individual is willing to bear (and to head off the nanny staters most likely responses, speaking means things like endorsements, criticisms, opinions, positions, publication of how a senator (for example) votes, etc., but does not include libel, slander, incitement to violence or any other clearly illegal action). The only reasonable restriction would be a requirement of complete transparency in the process.

No rational person is going to be swayed merely by a surfeit of press or advertisements for a particular party or candidate, and for those who aren't rational (an unfortunately large number), they might be swayed, but I doubt the effect, overall, is worse than the problems caused by the laws themselves (it's amazing, isn't it, that in a substantial number of cases, the laws themselves are a greater harm to society than what it is they attempt to legislate).

[Twba]

What about the poor underpaid illegal immigrant that must work 30 hours per day just to pay rent?

I think that immigrant has learned from a lawyer how to maximize daily billable hours.

[disappointedinjoe]

Yes, up until the point that a particular blogger becomes an operative of a campaign.

did joe really say that? wow.

[Adam]

is this the same joe who told me i could "stop digging" my own hole yesterday? i do believe it is.

[Ed]

"It may eventually receive another vote under a slower, normal procedure that requires only a majority."

[crimethink]

Not sure if anyone will read this again, but the "fire" exception to the 1st and the schizophrenic/small child exception to the 2nd are Public Safety exceptions, not Public Policy exceptions as joe claims.

I'd be interested to see whether the recent changes in the Court's makeup might lead to a reversal of the McCain-Feingold decision.

[crimethink]

On Wednesday, December 10, 2003, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that upheld the key provisions of McCain-Feingold; the vote on the court was 5 to 4. Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion; they were joined by David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, and opposed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia.

So, assuming Roberts would vote as Rehnquist did, O'Connor's replacement would be the swing vote. But I bet we won't see this discussed during Alito's Senate hearings...

[joe]

Pro L,

"Honestly, joe, one of the reasons I must oppose you (aside from my bourgeois pragmatism), is that I think this whole thing will devolve into a lot of labeling, namecalling, and quibbling." I think you could well be right - the idea might be doomed by pragmatic problems with sorting out who's who.

"If we had a perfect machine intelligence (or God or an alien, if you prefer) running things, what would it do? Assuming its prime directive was to maximize human happiness, that is." I don't really think like this. I'm a "muddling through" type of thinker. I see a situation, and if there's a problem, I try to come up with a fix. Then a problem arises with the fix, and I fix that. Such is life.

deron, "Do you think campaign finance reforms have been a success?" Some. It seems to be more like collecting the trash than building a bridge, if you know what I mean. "Are they justified?" Yes, I think the political process has to protected from corruption, both by making the campaign process cleaner and more transparent, and by, if possible, reducing the dependence of officeholders on their funders.

"I've read lots of posts about what you think, but about 3/4 of them aren't from you." I get that a lot.

[R C Dean]

No, all of those people who work for the NYT are considered part of the NYT. It is still the NYT, with its speech and press rights, speaking for itself.

So now we have joe in the absolutely bizarre position of arguing that corporations have free speech rights that individuals do not. What he seems to be arguing here is that government can ban independent individuals from contracting for services from each other, but cannot ban a corporation from providing those same services in-house.

IOW, I can't hire someone to print my pamphlet slamming Bush, but a corporation that owns a print shop can print the exact same pamphlet.

OK, joe. If that's the way you want to read the First Amendment, go ahead, but I don't think very many will follow you there.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

I see a situation, and if there's a problem...

Which merely begs the question. Was there really ever a problem? What is the source of that problem?

Some

In what way has it been a success? You are very good at the old ipse dixit, but not so good at explaining why you believe something. Someday you might grow a backbone and actually explain why you think that writing that check isn't speech.

...both by making the campaign process cleaner and more transparent...

Its easy to make the process transparent. But that's not what CF laws are directed at for the most part.

...reducing the dependence of officeholders on their funders.

And thus limiting speech you don't like.

[Hakluyt]

Of course, we all know what joe is pointing us towards: public campaign financing. Yes, he's in favor of forcing me, and everyone else, to support candidates we'd never support if given a free choice.

[joe]

RC, does the fact that you have to twist my position so much to argue against it suggest anything to you?

[joe]

Hak, it's been several weeks since I read anything you wrote. You can stop now.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

He didn't twist your position. That's the natural outcome of the position you've put forth here. Maybe you should play some more chess; it will help you with your thinking skills.

[Hakluyt]

joe,

Whether you personally read my statements is no concern of mine. Eviscerating your commentary for others to see is what I am interested in.

[R C Dean]

RC, does the fact that you have to twist my position so much to argue against it suggest anything to you?

How did I twist your position, joe? You said the NYT can pay lots of people lots of money in order to distribute its speech because they are all part of the NYT.

No, all of those people who work for the NYT are considered part of the NYT. It is still the NYT, with its speech and press rights, speaking for itself.

I think your position completely falls apart analytically unless you are saying that the NYT, as a corporation, is allowed to speak for "itself" even though that speech requires it to pay lots of employees. When you say "all of those people who work for the NYT are part of the NYT" (not to mention the idea that a corporation speaks for itself) you are taking a very corporatist position.

If you mean to say that anyone is allowed to "speak for themselves" by paying outside, independent contractors, then you have just come over to our side of the debate. Placing this construction on your statement is inconsistent, BTW, with your statement that "all of those people who work for the NYT are part of the NYT."

I don't think there is any way to read what you said that doesn't boil down to: the NYT, because it is a corporation that employs all the people it needs to distribute its speech, is allowed to do so.

However, individuals outside the corporate fold are not allowed to contract with anyone, even the NYT, to distribute that same speech.

If you want to distribute your speech through a network of agents, in short, you need to do so by employing those agents in a corporate form so that "all of those people who distribute your speech are part of your corporation" (to paraphrase your statement above).

[joe]

See, now Kos and Atrios write about the same topic, take the same position, and they're so much more effective. Why? Because they actually talk about the real-world likelihoods and outcomes, rather than shrieking about slippery slopes to fascism, asking smart ass "gotcha" questions that avoid the core issues, and repeating Republican talking points.

[Pro Libertate]

You know, in the freshness of a new day, it occurs to me that the real onus in all of this should rest on the parties and on the politicians. Set up some stringent rules on what they can accept from donors but ignore entirely (legally speaking) the donors themselves. In other words, just punish the recipients of the largesse and not the givers thereof. Takes away the speech issue, I think. Also, I'd be all for a sort of zero tolerance ideal being placed on people in office. Technical violation of a campaign finance law? You're out of office. Buh-bye. Not fair? It's not a right to be in office, fella. To avoid an insane amount of political gamesmanship on this sort of ouster, it would probably be a good idea to make clear what was okay and what wasn't, but that's another issue. I'd probably enjoy seeing chaos in Washington, myself.

One other thought? Ban political parties. Not the associations of citizens, of course, but the overlap of political party management over the official mechanisms of government. Sorry, illegal.

Going even further, I'd also entirely eliminate (this would take Constitutional meddlin') preferences in Congress for seniority. Why some guy gets to stiffarm legislation in committee because he's been around since before electricity has never made sense to me. While we're at it, how about national term limits? We're too stupid to stop putting these corrupt suckers back into office, so let's make ourselves stop.

Any more?

[MP]

Then a problem arises with the fix, and I fix that. Such is life.

The micromanagement of the bureaucratic state, and all of the arbitrariness, selective enforcement, and rights infringements that come with it, is one of the greatest evils of government.

Papers please.

[R C Dean]

Pro L. - all futile. All of it, because it is all an attempt to repeal the iron law of politics.

We should require candidates to disclose where every penny comes from and where it goes. We should prohibit campaigns from accepting money that can't be sourced to an individual human being.

We should leave everyone else the hell alone and let them spend what they want to say what they want.

Anything else is (a) futile in keeping big money out of politics and (b) has the likely effect of raising barriers to entry into the marketplace of political speech.

[Phil]

See, now Kos and Atrios write about the same topic, take the same position, and they're so much more effective. Why?

Let me guess: Because they're in the same political party as you, robbing you of the opportunity to be smug, insulting and condescending. I do, though, appreciate the tacit admission that you're on the wrong side of this particular issue. Warms my heart, it does.

[deron]

deron, "Do you think campaign finance reforms have been a success?" Some. It seems to be more like collecting the trash than building a bridge, if you know what I mean. "Are they justified?" Yes, I think the political process has to protected from corruption, both by making the campaign process cleaner and more transparent, and by, if possible, reducing the dependence of officeholders on their funders.

I tend to disagree then. It seems money is still king in politics, and the myriad laws make it anything but clear.

The failure of this law doesn't bother me that much in the context of the current scheme. My preference is that the overall context be replaced, in which case there isn't a need for a carved out exception for the internet.

I think the only thing that can balance the power money has in politics is transparency, knowing the source. I trust people can vote against a well funded candidate if they felt that candidate is being bought by some interest.

[deron]

deron, "Do you think campaign finance reforms have been a success?" Some. It seems to be more like collecting the trash than building a bridge, if you know what I mean. "Are they justified?" Yes, I think the political process has to protected from corruption, both by making the campaign process cleaner and more transparent, and by, if possible, reducing the dependence of officeholders on their funders.

I tend to disagree then. It seems money is still king in politics, and the myriad laws make it anything but clear.

The failure of this law doesn't bother me that much in the context of the current scheme. My preference is that the overall context be replaced, in which case there isn't a need for a carved out exception for the internet.

I think the only thing that can balance the power money has in politics is transparency, knowing the source. I trust people can vote against a well funded candidate if they felt that candidate is being bought by some interest.

[deron]

deron, "Do you think campaign finance reforms have been a success?" Some. It seems to be more like collecting the trash than building a bridge, if you know what I mean. "Are they justified?" Yes, I think the political process has to protected from corruption, both by making the campaign process cleaner and more transparent, and by, if possible, reducing the dependence of officeholders on their funders.

I tend to disagree then. It seems money is still king in politics, and the myriad laws make it anything but clear.

The failure of this law doesn't bother me that much in the context of the current scheme. My preference is that the overall context be replaced, in which case there isn't a need for a carved out exception for the internet.

I think the only thing that can balance the power money has in politics is transparency, knowing the source. I trust people can vote against a well funded candidate if they felt that candidate is being bought by some interest.

[joe]

Pro Libertate, I like your principles. However, what about the respected citizens group, the Committee for Fuzzy Bunnies That Totally Wasn't Started by Karl Rove Using Money Jack Abramoff Scammed From an Indian Tribe? They're citizens, dammit, just folks, you know?

[Pro Libertate]

RC Dean, you mean even my zero tolerance rule? I liked that one. In general, I think we should barely allow the fools to hold office, and if they give us the slightest excuse, out they go. This whole entrenched power thing has got to be bad for the country. Maybe if the incoming guys felt that power was fleeting, they'd be less interested in all the fluff and would focus on more core issues. . .nah.

Maybe we need an entrance exam before you can run for office?

[Phil]

While we're at it, how about national term limits? We're too stupid to stop putting these corrupt suckers back into office, so let's make ourselves stop.

A-men. The defeat of previous term limit laws on Constitutional grounds baffles me given the existence of the 22nd amendment. If we can limit the terms of Presidents, we can limit them for the rest of the clowns.

[Hakluyt]

Pro Libertate,

The entrance exam is called an election. Besides, most candidates do fill out those Center for Responsive Politics forms.

[Hakluyt]

Phil,

Because the 22nd Amendment was, you know, an amendment to the Constitution. It doesn't refer to any other federal officeholder besides the President (even the Veep). If you want term limits that deal with term limits for Reps and Senators, then that an amendment is the way forward on that issue.

[Pro Libertate]

joe (and RC Dean, again), the disclosure piece of campaign finance reform gets my most enthusiastic support. Everything should be disclosed. Sure, there will be games played with who is really behind what, but all we can do is shine as much light on things as possible. When loopholes pop open, try to close them. When politicians or political parties are caught evading these laws, they should be severely punished. I'm not much for putting the onus on people outside of the parties, though I know there are plenty of fronts out there.

Consider Moveon.org. Really a pretty open front organization for Soros (and probably the DNC), right? Clearly anti-Bush, gobs of money, etc. I don't have a problem with that. Their rather shrill and not very principled commentary got more play than it would have without all of the money, but, in the end, I think the whole business may have done more good than harm. At least we're talking about these things, which is the point of a marketplace of ideas.

One vague glimmer of hope that I have is that people are starting to be more aware of the wackier side of each party. In the old days, those fringe elements were catered to quietly, without a lot of national attention. Now, you can't really do that, what with the Internet and with the 24/7 newscycle. I've had more than one friend on any side of the aisle you want to name (even hovering above it) say that we should just start a "Sanity" Party. A good sign, that.

[Phil]

Hakluyt, don't be pedantic. I'm aware of the content of the 22nd amendment, or I wouldn't have mentioned it. It's academic anyway -- good luck getting the House and Senate to agree on an amendment that limits the terms of members of the House and Senate. You'd sooner get them to simply repeal the 22nd.

[Hakluyt]

PL,

One vague glimmer of hope that I have is that people are starting to be more aware of the wackier side of each party.

We live in a fairly locked in system of party preference, and barring a change in how we elect people (e.g., proportional representation, etc.) or some major re-alignment that knocks out a party and in the ashes of that party a new one forms (which basically means a return to the status quo), that is going to remain the same.

[Pro Libertate]

Hakluyt, just kidding about the entrance exam, though it would amuse me to see how stupid some of the officeholders really are. Not that I need all that much more evidence on that score.

Also, I agree with you on the need for a Constitutional amendment on the term limits issue. As I recall, the Court acted as it did because the states were independently imposing term limits on federal officeholders. Now, I'm not sure I entirely agree with that decision, but the fact remains that the only way to safely ensure that limits will be firmly in place is to add them to the Consitutition.

[Hakluyt]

Phil,

If you are aware of what it says, then why are you claiming that it should be a means to allow for non-amendment mandated term limits?

As to the futility of getting a constitutional amendment passed re: congressional term limits, well, yes, you are right.

[Hakluyt]

Pro Libertate,

Well, the states are given a "time, place and manner" power over Congressional elections, and that is all. Their decision bodes ill for term limits placed on Congress by Congress as well (as does the S.C.'s reading of the qualifcations clause).

[Pro Libertate]

Here's a thought: Someday, the Democrats and the Republicans will both be history. I doubt anyone here expects them to last hundreds of years more, right? So as impossibly entrenched as they seem today, something will happen to change the rules eventually. I tend to think technological changes (and parallel cultural changes) will pare away their power over time, but that's just a guess, and I can't really predict how that will occur. Other than with the inevitable and annoying reference to robot overlords.

[Pro Libertate]

At times like these, I almost want another Constitutional Convention. Then I recoil in horror at the thought of what the jokers in power today would do in revising the document (shudder). Where are the people of the caliber of the founding fathers? What's wrong with us that we can't produce them today? Where is Gauis Marius on this issue on the inevitable decline of society?

[Phil]

If you are aware of what it says, then why are you claiming that it should be a means to allow for non-amendment mandated term limits?

I claimed no such thing; if you think I did, you didn't read what I wrote. I brought it up to illustrate that there's no particular Constitutional barrier to limiting the terms of Federal officeholders; contrary to what some of the (generally self-interested) opponents of House/Senate term limits have argued, characterizing such limits as violations of the rights of speech and associatio.

[Hakluyt]

P.L.,

The Democrats have been around since 1828 (it has roots back to the old Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans of course). The Republicans since 1856 (this party also has roots back to the Whigs, the Federalists and even the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans). Both parties seem to have some staying power.

[Hakluyt]

Phil,

I brought it up to illustrate that there's no particular Constitutional barrier to limiting the terms of Federal officeholders...

Then why did we have to pass a Constitutional amendment to bar a person from seeking more than two terms as President? The constitutional barrier, along with many other things, is the need to get an amendment passed.

If you could explain the linkage between the passing of a constitutional amendment and some state laws on the matter of federal elections it would be helpful.

[joe]

Actually, Pro L, MoveOn and the DLC are at each others throats fairly often.

[joe]

I meant "DNC." But DLC works, too.

[Isaac Bartram]

Both parties seem to have some staying power.

They may have staying power in their names but the parties today would be practically unrecognizable to most of their adherents of fifty years ago.

So in fifty years will the Democrats (rhetorically though not in fact) be the party of small government ant free markets and the Republicans be the party in favor of entrenched Federal power and protectionism? These were in practically every way (ignoring racial issues*) their respective positions until about a hundred years ago.

*Which are pretty hard to ignore. But as hard as the Ds try to paint the Rs as "The Racist Party" they simply are not (at least not in the same way as the Ds were the racist party until about 75 years ago).

[Pro Libertate]

Hakluyt, I really do think the parties will have a rough time surviving over the long haul. We might keep the names for tradition's sake, but there have been signs of splintering for a while. Just imagine if the Reform Party had been run by sane people. We might already be looking at a new major party. Not to mention the LP, which probably could've supplanted the GOP on the small government platform if it had the slightest interest in being relevant in politics. Of course, neither of those parties has ever impressed me as a serious contender; I think the real threat to the status quo is the fact that people are concerned about an order of magnitude more issues at the federal level than they used to be. That will inevitably lead to disenchantment and splintering. I'm for the Bull Moose Party, myself.

P.S. I think it's a lot harder to maintain anything long term anymore, other than a copyright or trademark 🙂

[Tom Crick]

They may have staying power in their names but the parties today would be practically unrecognizable to most of their adherents of fifty years ago.

I still associate the Democratism with popular sovereignty, perhaps because my gross pay seems its victim.

...I still associate Republicanism--in spite of the current crop--with resistance to the suggestion that my rights are a proper topic for public debate.

[John]

The NRA recently tried to get around McCain Feingold by starting a radio station putting out its views. It is a media outlet and therefore exempt. How long before people like Joe show up to shut them down because they are too partisian and not a legitimate media outlet? People are going to circumvent this law by claiming to be media. When that happens, it will quickly spread to regulating all media and the speech police will then be in the business of regulating the content of news in the name of balance. Essentially someone like Joe will be determining what news we can see and hear so that "the little guy has a fair chance" and we get a "balanced view of the news". That is where this is leading.

[James]

Full disclosure requirements won't help the future employee that decides to contribute to a Democrat. He or She will be terminated on the spot.

[deron]

Full disclosure requirements won't help the future employee that decides to contribute to a Democrat. He or She will be terminated on the spot.

I don't know why that would be true. There may be some risk of it, but no greater than the risk of being canned for having a bumper sticker on your car.

I also suspect that in union shops managers are already quite aware that the employees don't align their votes with management wishes.

[John]

You are right Seamus, but don't think for a moment that the Left won't revive the fairness doctrine to get rid of Rush Limbaugh and Conservative blogs in the name of balance. If they have to through Kos and Atrious over the side in the name of consistency then so be it. They know they will be a lot better off with the MSM running things again even if it means they have to loose the leftwing blogsphere to do so.