Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Election Commission Takes a Light Touch With Net Regs 102

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the shuffling-paperwork dept.
CNet is reporting that the Federal Election Commission released a 96-page volume of internet regulations last Friday. From the article: "The rules [PDF] say that paid Web advertising, including banner ads and sponsored links on search engines, will be regulated like political advertising in other types of media. They also say bloggers can enjoy the freedoms of traditional news organizations when endorsing a candidate or engaging in political speech.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Election Commission Takes a Light Touch With Net Regs More

Election Commission Takes a Light Touch With Net Regs

Comments Filter:

  • How nice of them. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rebeka thomas ( 673264 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @08:19AM (#14993251)
    They also say bloggers can enjoy the freedoms of traditional news organizations when endorsing a candidate or engaging in political speech.

    Aren't we lucky, they're so gracious as to allow us our constitutionally protected free speech. Like they had a choice.

    • Actually when it comes to elections they do have a choice. This seems on the surface to me to be a good decision by the election commission and I hope we get more intelligent but applicable decisions from our government in the future.

      • Exactly. In an age when Constitutional rights amount to splitting hairs (e.g. who exactly has what rights under the first amendment? May I yell "fire" in a crowded location as a prank?), this is a good thing. It means the government is paying attention. While I am all for minimal to no regulation, the regulations we do have need to count: even if it is just to say "there is no regulation, go ahead, use your first amendment rights."

        • It is dangerous to allow the government to write laws that explicitly grant rights that you already have.

          Because, you see, laws can be changed. Over time, the debate will be reframed, and it will be said that this new law is the *reason* that you have your rights... but the government can change the laws, and if the only reason you have this right is beacuse the government gave it to you... well, then they can simply take it away.

    • Re:How nice of them. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Pharmboy ( 216950 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @10:30AM (#14993420) Journal
      Aren't we lucky, they're so gracious as to allow us our constitutionally protected free speech. Like they had a choice.

      But by "giving" us the right, they reserve their right to take it away in the future, if the right is "abused". So they have set a precident that may come in handy in the future, as long as those nasty courts don't interfere.

      Fortunately for them, by the time a court interferes, the election would likely be over, rendering the point moot for that election season, and giving them the opportunity to create a differently worded "right of speach". Rinse, repeat.
      • Is like when I hear a politician say "We can't pay for that tax cut". It shows the porker has forgotten - it ain't his money. It's our money.
        It really flames me to hear stuff like that.
        Rights are what you're born with, cuz God, FSM, or evolution made it a part of being human. If you're not alive, you're not human - you're worm food. If you have no liberty, you're not living as humans need to live.
        And every human will, unless opressed, pursue happiness.
        This is what's meant in the Declaration by "These tr
      • Didn't you mother ever teach you the different between CAN and MAY?

        Bloggers CAN enjoy the FREEDOM.

        If you aks anyone educated in english, they have AFFIRMED speech on the internet is PROTECTED by the first amendment, while COMMERCE is subject to regulation.

        If they wanted to take it away, they would not have so unambigiously announced the freedom.
        There is nothing "new" about this law, it's not totalitarian, and it only affects capaign spending. This idea that the government is EEEVUL for passing this law

    • Notice it specified only endorsing a candidate or engaging in political speech.

      So if its neither, such as a discussion about how bad your car is, or some technical discussion about evolution, then its not protected online.

      Oh, and they always have a choice. They can restrict our rights as much as they want in law. Then its up to us to take them to court to prove they have overstepped their bounds and have the law tossed. On our dime.
      • We always have the choice to not storm their headquarters and throw them out of the top floor, too. Forget courts. Tall buildings, much more convincing.

      • Oh, and they always have a choice. They can restrict our rights as much as they want in law. Then its up to us to take them to court to prove they have overstepped their bounds and have the law tossed. On our dime.

        In the USA at least, the Constitution is the highest law of the land.

        Because of this, I never understood why it is that a politician can pass (or help to pass) an unconstitutional law and it can negatively affect the welfare and livelihood and personal freedoms of many people, and yet when t

        • checks and balances (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jheath314 ( 916607 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @01:06PM (#14993932)
          How the hell did this get modded insightful?

          The SCOTUS isn't there to punish unconstitutional policy, just block it. Accountability should come only through elections. If we equated getting overruled by the courts with treason, that would destroy the system of checks and balances by elevating the courts to a position similar to the Iranian "Council of Guardians." There's simply no way such a system wouldn't be abused: imagine what a court stuffed with Republican appointees would do to a Democrat president, or vice versa.

          Ironic how your post about respecting the Constitution reveals a very basic incomprehension about how the system created by that Constitution actually works.
          • Yeah I agree it's not SCOTUS' job to punish politicians for treason, but I can't agree that accountability should only come from elections. That would mean then the worst punishment a politician might get for violating the supreme law of the land is not being reelected, and as (not only) recent history showed, even this isn't doesn't happen most of the time.
        • If an elected official knowingly (and politicians overwhelmingly tend to be lawyers, so I doubt they can claim ignorance) contradicts the highest law of the land, especially for the purpose of political gain, they should simply be charged with treason and tried in a criminal court, and if found guilty by a court of law, they should be executed or receive life in prison.

          From the Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3:

          Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War a

      • So if its neither, such as a discussion about how bad your car is, or some technical discussion about evolution, then its not protected online.

        No, no, NO. The Federal Elections Commission only regulates, you guessed it, ELECTIONS. They only have regulatory authority when it comes to campaign speech. Get a clue, go back to school. Fool.
        • Close, but no cigar.

          The Federal Elections Commission is granted the authority to regulate elections -- not speech.

          Not even speech about elections. Just the processes of the elections themselves.

          By trying to regulate speech, they're attempting to extend their authority beyond that granted to them.

      • Maybe, just maybe it only specified political speech because it's about a report from the Federal Election Commission. Or maybe it's a far reaching conspiracy to stop you from complaining about your Ford's fuel efficiency.

    • Re:How nice of them. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by stealth.c ( 724419 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @10:52AM (#14993476)
      And yet your description of our freedom of speech betrays your unconscious acceptance of a subtler level of totalitarianism.

      Constitutionally protected? If that is the case your freedom comes from the gracious allowance of that document. My liberty (of speech and action) comes standard with my humanity. I don't need a 200-year-old paper to grant it to me. The only trouble is that I live under a government and in a society that will do things I do not desire if I say or do certain things; I modify my behavior accordingly.

      We would have been better off without a Bill of Rights. Since the first ten amendments are enumerations of things government CAN NOT do, government has plausible (but still wrong) ground to assume there are other powers it can take on because nothing says it can't. The Constitution was better as a document enumerating the things government CAN do, with the assumption being that all other powers are strictly excluded.

      In essence, our precious bill of rights has doomed us to totalitarianism. The Constitution may have slowed the process, but that's where we're headed anyway.

      Nevertheless, I do agree with you. It's ridiculous for anyone to say they "allowed" anyone to say anything on the Internet. I could just as easily say that I allow the sun to rise.
      • "It astonishes me to find... [that so many] of our countrymen... should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty... which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1788.

        Jefferson w

      • Since the first ten amendments are enumerations of things government CAN NOT do, government has plausible (but still wrong) ground to assume there are other powers it can take on because nothing says it can't.

        That is entirely not how the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are written.

      • Re:How nice of them. (Score:5, Informative)

        by spiritraveller ( 641174 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @11:12AM (#14993538)
        We would have been better off without a Bill of Rights. Since the first ten amendments are enumerations of things government CAN NOT do, government has plausible (but still wrong) ground to assume there are other powers it can take on because nothing says it can't. The Constitution was better as a document enumerating the things government CAN do, with the assumption being that all other powers are strictly excluded.

        This was actually an argument that some of the Founding Fathers made against the Bill of Rights at the time it was drafted. That argument was the reason that the 9th Amendment was tacked on. It says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

        But in spite of the 9th Amendment, the fact that a declared right is not enumerated in the Constitution or its Amendments is frequently used to argue that we do not have that right. For example, the argument against abortion rights almost always begins with "Nowhere in the Constitution does it say..."

        • Re:How nice of them. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by sorak ( 246725 )
          We would have been better off without a Bill of Rights. Since the first ten amendments are enumerations of things government CAN NOT do, government has plausible (but still wrong) ground to assume there are other powers it can take on because nothing says it can't. The Constitution was better as a document enumerating the things government CAN do, with the assumption being that all other powers are strictly excluded.

          This was actually an argument that some of the Founding Fathers made against the Bill of Rig

        • The court ruled on abortion as a "right of privacy" issue.

          If unenumerated rights are being pulled into play then why didn't they just rule on a "right to kill your baby"?

          Seriously, why did they place this issue under the umbrella of privacy? Could it be that this was the only way that an activist court* could find a way to justify its agenda within the framework of the constitution and its precursors? Or was it just a convenient way to ram the issue down the throats of the American people?


          *True and
          • Seriously, why did they place this issue under the umbrella of privacy?

            Because there was already precedent for treating birth control as a privacy issue. Griswold v. Connecticut dealt with a state's attempt to stop its citizens from using birth control.

            Any divisive issue has two sides to it, and abortion is no exception. The privacy perspective is that it is the woman's body, and as long as the pregnancy has not reached a point of "viability" it is her private decision. The other perspective is that at s
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • My liberty (of speech and action) comes standard with my humanity. I don't need a 200-year-old paper to grant it to me.

        No, but in a civil society you need some sort of legal instrument to guarantee and protect it. The militia-types out there will be thinking right about now, "that's what guns are for!", but they're wrong. Without debating whether the use of guns (i.e., force) is ever appropriate, it's not appropriate for everyday violations of one's rights. If people responded to violations of their righ
      • "The Constitution was better as a document enumerating the things government CAN do, with the assumption being that all other powers are strictly excluded"

        The bill of rights does very specifically, strictly exclude the Federal government from exercising other powers. Read the 10th amendment.
        Bill Of Rights Transcript [archives.gov]
        It says that any power not granted by this constitution to the Federal Gov't is reserved to the states or to the people. This was to prevent the Fed Gov from expanding and squeezing the s
    • They also say bloggers can enjoy the freedoms of traditional news organizations when endorsing a candidate or engaging in political speech.

      Also, watch out for huge numbers of splogs put on every blog server by the candidates' campaign organizations.

      • Also, watch out for huge numbers of splogs put on every blog server by the candidates' campaign organizations. which will all be listed under "online communications expenses" on their campaign filing forms.
    • The FEC was directed by the courts to issue regulations, this actually is not so bad. Had Congress passed HR 1606 Internet political activity would have been exempt. If HR 4900 passes it will be much worse.

  • Their First Banner Ad (Score:3, Funny)

    by Scarletdown ( 886459 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @08:19AM (#14993252) Journal
    This election sponsored by Diebold
    • > This election sponsored by Diebold

      s/sponsored/decided/

  • Light touch? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Kijori ( 897770 )
    In what way does regulating the internet in the same way as print media qualify as a light touch? Just seems like fairness to me.
    • My impression is that it is a "light touch" as opposed to what many had feared, which was that blogging content would be regulated more strictly than print media.

    • Re:Light touch? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Pharmboy ( 216950 )
      In what way does regulating the internet in the same way as print media qualify as a light touch? Just seems like fairness to me.

      To me, the biggest fear is that they HAD to clarify this. Publishing on the internet should be regarded exactly the same as publishing flyers, TV ads, books, etc. WITHOUT clarification. The job of determining this has traditionally been left to the courts anyway.

      Anytime the government decides to regulate speach, you are entering very dangerous waters. This included McCain-Feing
      • Some of us believe that campaign contributions should be 100% without limits

        Those people are either idiots or megalomaniacs trying to buy what they could in no honest way control otherwise. Which are you?
      • I have no problem restricting the donation of money to a campaign, the problem comes when the government tried to define free speech as a donation because you spent money getting your message out


        giving 5 million to $candidate so he can spend it on campaigning = bad and should be regulated

        spending 5 million selling people you think they should vote for $candidate = first amendment

        • Re:Light touch? (Score:2, Insightful)

          by iminplaya ( 723125 )
          giving 5 million to $candidate so he can spend it on campaigning = bad and should be regulated

          spending 5 million selling people you think they should vote for $candidate = first amendment

          So, what you're saying is: first amendment=bad and should be regulated. Don't sweat it. Lots of people believe that [winonadailynews.com].

          • the transfer of money is not speech it it commerce.
            • Both your scenarios involve the transfer of money. Whether I give the money to a candidate or if I spend it myself campaigning for him doesn't matter. They are the same thing. Both would be for the his benefit. Besides, you shouldn't regulate the transfer of money either. How and when I move my money is my business. However, you are welcone to tax it at a set percentage equal to all other transactions. Now, if I'm running for office, you would be very correct in demanding to know where the money comes from.
            • the transfer of money is not speech it it commerce.

              I don't mean to argue, but I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court sees donating to a campaign as Speech. It is a way of enabling someone else to speak for you in the government. They may allow regulating it but it is still speech.

              Yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre is illegal because it is a regulation to limit "free speech" in one of the few situations where the greater good of the community outweights the individuals right to speak. Yelling FIRE is generally
              • Well, I'm no believer in precident. Slavery was once established in precident. Tradition doesn't make it right. Now, if political speech was spelled out specifically in the constitution or an amendment, I could understand idea of different kinds of speech. Not that I would agree. However, the first amendment specifically states "...no law...". If that goes against the grain, then the constitution needs another amendment, instead of loosly interpreting the ones we have just to avoid offending people. I will
              • I don't mean to argue, but I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court sees donating to a campaign as Speech. It is a way of enabling someone else to speak for you in the government. They may allow regulating it but it is still speech.

                And the Supreme Court doesn't always get it right. See Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott v. Sanford, Korematsu v. United States, and too many other cases to list.

                Yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre is illegal because it is a regulation to limit "free speech" in one of the few situations whe
        • The key, in my opinion, is that you and I know that "ABC123, Inc." gave Sen. Joe Blow $5 million dollars and the transaction is totally in the open. Anything less is a limitation on free speech.

          I know not everyone thinks this way, but if ABC123, Inc. wants to get $5 million to Joe, they will, one way or another. If it is legal, at least everyone will KNOW it, and can decide to vote for Joe, who is already bought and paid for. Right now, Joe is already getting the $5 million, but its by ABC123, Inc. hirin
      • Some of us believe that campaign contributions should be 100% without limits, but 100% reported and accounted for so the public can see exactly who is buying and selling our politicians.

        Exactly. Anything less is an admission that we don't have a free will...that we're not capable of deciding for ourselves. It's the voter that is most influenced by money. They always vote for the guy who flashes the most of it. That's nobody's fault but our own. This thought also applies to speech. We must understand that in
        • Some people feel compelled to "protect us, from us" by limiting speech. It "isn't fair if Sen. Bob has more money than Sen. John" so they try to limit the capability to raise money. Maybe Sen. John is an asshole, so no one donates to him. Maybe Sen. Bob is a crook, so businesses funnel millions to him. With FULL reporting of donations, at least I have the information to decide for myself.

          And no, I don't need a government official "protecting" me by limiting the money raised. I'm smart enough to decide
  • What the major parties wanted was for blogs to be exempt from the normal regulations on financing. With the same regulations in place as for the traditional media, we can avoid the situation where paid bloggers swamp the net with propaganda with no oversight or control.

    "Freedom of speech on the Internet" indeed. The point was freedom of money to buy political speech while keeping the money trail secret.
    • The point was freedom of money to buy political speech while keeping the money trail secret.

      Wow .. what a DAMN SHAME to have unregulated speech!

      Hey, if you don't want to listen to someone who may have been payed by "Big Politics", then perchance why don't you do something about it, like ask the journalists to affirm or deny they are being paid by politicians for their stories? You can challenge them to go on record. You could even get them to do this contractually, if you wanted to. (Via subscription, since

      • why don't you ... ask the journalists to affirm or deny they are being paid by politicians for their stories? You can challenge them to go on record. You could even get them to do this contractually, if you wanted to. (Via subscription, since you're paying them money ... )

        A contract needs both an offer and acceptance. No major print publication would accept such a contract at prices that the median residential customer can afford.

    • With the same regulations in place as for the traditional media, we can avoid the situation where paid bloggers swamp the net with propaganda with no oversight or control.

      In contrast to the current situation where newspapers can spend whatever they want on slanted news and opinions, the bloggers are limited to $5000. Sorry, this is not an even playing field.

      Since reading bloggers is a totally user driven experience, compared to adds on TV or even print, there is no reason for any limits.

      The USA has a trad

      • Since reading bloggers is a totally user driven experience, compared to adds on TV or even print, there is no reason for any limits.

        This is what the FEC decided. The new regs treat a blog like the blogger's own personal soapbox. He can say whatever he wants, and it is not regulated. He counts as media. But paid advertisements, or a paid-for blog entry, is regulated.
      • The founder's tradition of anonymous speech had *nothing* to do with "bandwidth", it had to do with knowing the truth about the government. Most importantly, it is important that citizens know when they're hearing honest opinion, and when they're hearing political campaigning.
        Political parties would *love* that the citizens NOT KNOW when they're being fed propaganda, so that the citizens are more likely to swallow it.
        The FEC's decision does NOT apply to people honestly expressing their opinions, but to peo
        • The comment on anonymous has nothing to do with bandwidth, nor did I imply such. It stands alone. The founders were used to anonymous political speech (maybe psuedonymous is a better term) and said nothing to prohibit it, so it should be covered under the 1st Amendment.

          The comment on bandwidth was a counter to the current idea that money not only buys speech, but can out shout the competition. With user driven access, that doesn't happen with blogging.

          As far as bloggers being bought, who cares. Reputat

  • "Light" touch?? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Entropy ( 6967 )
    96 pages of regulations is "light"? Only by government standards, geesh!

    How about a lighter touch: the US Constitution is about 6 pages.

    Or, gosh golly & gee wiz, how about an even lighter touch than that? The first amendment is 45 words ..

    Or how about: HANDS OFF THE INTERNET YOU ASSHATS!

    Yeah, I think that sounds better :)
  • Their rhetoric implies that at some point in the future, these things will be regulated in the name of 'political speech.' Do you all realize how broad that phrase really is? It has no basis in reality, rather it is a variable waiting to be 'interpreted.' Bans on advertisements against political candidates (in x case at y time) is the logical precursor to bans on talking about political candidates (in x case at y time). How long do you suppose this will last? Until the next crisis? The next war? The
  • The Internet is a public forum where people gather freely.

    The Internet (American Netizens, in this case) should, therefore, be regulating the Federal Election Commission, not the other way around.

    If we permit them to frame this as "allowing" us inherent rights, we are giving freedoms up, both locally (America), and globally, as in the whole Net, unnecessarily.

  • Full disclosure (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Brian Stretch ( 5304 ) * on Saturday March 25, 2006 @11:25AM (#14993565)
    Require full disclosure of who's-financing-what (for $ amounts above a certain cutoff), but otherwise political speech should be largely unregulated as the First Amendment states. Even that restriction probably shouldn't get past the First Amendment but it'd be an improvement over the current jobs program for lawyers.

    The cure for free speech is more speech.
    • Require full disclosure

      The very ANTITHESIS of freedom of speech, as this would doom anonymity.

      We can have free speech, or we can have unfree speech. I prefer the former, as the later means my ideas may be arbitrarily silenced.

      Which do you prefer?
      • >The very ANTITHESIS of freedom of speech, as this would doom anonymity.

        An important point.

        If the speech involves spending money and a single "speaker" can affect the outcome of the entire election, don't we need transparency? If government contractor Remora, Inc. pays $100 to each of 100,000 bloggers in the district of Senator Porkbringer who sits on the Appropriations Committee, isn't it best to have that fact on opensecrets.org? So we'll know what's going on when Senator Porkbringer tells us that nati
        • That is a very important point. We want to know when companies are influencing the election of politicians who are going to give them a sweet deal. Its imperitive to ensure that our nation doesn't turn into a corporate controlled state. Oops. Too late.

          However, if I, as an independent citizen, wish to publish a political blog under the name Publius, I should have that right as well. I shouldn't have to file forms or disclose my funding if I wish to exercise my right to free speech. Nor should the go
  • For shame Federal Election Commission.

    You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket...

  • "can enjoy the freedoms" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Saturday March 25, 2006 @12:38PM (#14993822) Homepage Journal
    The FEC is the number one reason we continue our slide towards tyranny. They regulate speech where the 1st Amendment prevents them from trampling on that basic right. They regulate money -- and money is a store of your labor to be used as you please (a form of expression). They regulate who can run as a candidate as they completely destroyed the ability for an independent to raise the needed funds due to the incumbent protection clauses. They also have taken huge steps to destroying the voice of people who are not just against one party or another but against the entire system.

    These laws and these regulations are so counter-freedom that it amazes me that people don't READ THE LAWS and see how attrocious they are. McCain-Feingold should be renamed "The Incumbent Protection Act" -- read it carefully and you'll see that it was written to kill the Greens and the Libertarians and any other 3rd party by reducing their ability to gain financing from a few campaign donors.

    The problem with elections is not money, not corporations, not anything that the politicians say it is. The problem with elections is that the seat one is trying to win has too much power. If you want to fix elections, fix the political seat -- reduce the power of government to where it should be under the Constitution. When the power is reduced, no amount of money will create protectionism, favoritism and cronyism.

    I don't want to be able to enjoy the freedoms because government says I "can." I want to use my freedoms to never worry that government might tell me how narrow those freedoms are becoming.
    • They regulate money -- and money is a store of your labor to be used as you please (a form of expression).

      Not necessarily your labor; EG, an inherited fortune. It's also philisophically debateable as to what extent a return on investment represents a store of your labor per se. It's also more accurate to say that money is an accumulation of the benefit, not the labor itself... a subtle point the early communist theorists failed to understand, to their peril and the world's detriment. (Even "benefit" is a

      • That the use of your "money" constitutes a form of expression isn't in question

        The use of my money involves a crap diebold machine that blanks the screen when I ask for an account balance, so I take my card and hope the next crap diebold machine in the row works. I need to trust my money and your elections to a company with some very dodgy employees that have done serious jail time.

        you need to find an alternate solution to the problems of the inequities of corporate power before you weaken the government

        M

    • They regulate speech. . . They regulate money . . . and money is . . . a form of expression.

      This is another piece of right wing bullshit. A lie often repeated, but a lie nonetheless. It shows up nearly as often as another lie: "A corporation's only responsibility is to make money for its shareholders."

      Despite the propoganda you may have heard, money is not speech and the freedom to do whatever you want with your money is not unrestricted, nor should it be. If you think it is, see what attempting to b

      • Re:"can enjoy the freedoms" (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "This is another piece of right wing bullshit. A lie often repeated, but a lie nonetheless."
        So, peeing on the flag = speech.

        BUT

        Buying poster board, tv spots and taking an ads out in the newspapers = not speech.

        Yeah, I can understand that.... sure....

        Besides, if you read the parent, he's not rightwing or leftwing; he's saying that there is a problem that "right" and "left" are your only choices and that one reason for that is that independant parties with few contributors have these caps.

        "It shows up nearly
        • "If someone else, agrees with my message, and republishes (and had permission from me (copyright holder of the original work)), and prints it anonymously as well, it is protected by the law. How is this any different if the second person payed me in order to save the settup fees and saving the labor of having to re-run the printing?"

          But what if they don't give a flying fuck about the message and are simply interested in making a buck. I think the difference you can't see is twofold, money and disclosure.
        • Buying favors, and donating money are seperate issues. If I were running, and I got a giant contribution; it would not incline me to vote against what I believe the best for my area is, juect because the giver asked me to.

          Yeah, I'm sure you're uncorruptable. What happens when, at the next election, you can't get any campaign "contibutions" because you didn't do the bidding of your contributors. The answer is "you lose" because you can't be corrupted.

          That's what the "money is speech" crowd doesn't se

    • You can start by repealing the 17th amendment. If Senators are appointed be the congress instead of elected, then maybe they wouldn't spend 4 years campaigning for president instead of going to work, and would be more unbiased to actually reform financing laws. After all, they serve six year terms, and the house serves four.. it was designed that way for a reason. Piss off a congressman by doing the right thing, against his demands, and the public is on your side.. no reprecussions. he's not going to be aro

  • Yeay (Score:2)

    by Kohath ( 38547 )
    Freedom of speech only "lightly" abridged (for now). Yeay.
  • Offering competitive advertising rates to any political group smart enough to work out that I'm outside the regulatory powers of the FEC. Don't let your hard earned campaign war chest be controlled by a delusional government department. Call or Email for a free quote.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close