If Obama and McCain..

It's a touch hyperbolic to say "do away with the First Amendment," no?

You can look at it that way; I, OTOH, look at it as a means of removing the "cash on hand = prominent candidate" element to elections. Several candidates in this cycle couldn't generate the money to get a campaign rolling. Some of them you may have already forgotten: Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel (I think he's out anyway), etc.

Why are these candidates inferior to those currently likely to win the primaries? Can you point out to me, on a policy level, why that may be the case? Or is it more likely that money = legitimacy in campaigns? When that's removed (or, realistically, reduced), candidates can compete on the terms of actual issues - we can't write off Ron Paul because he doesn't have money to compete, or Huckabee, or others (hell, even McCain in the middle/late of 2007!). That finances are related to how loudly a candidate is heard is an impediment to "free speech," in my opinion.

If we can silence partisan organizations in disguise, such as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, then *great*, IMO. Free speech is often misused in campaign seasons to promote biased agendas by organizations that hide their true partisan underpinnings. Get rid of 'em.
 
I get the arguments about McCain-Feingold being an infringement upon free speech. If it's unconstitutional, let it be struck down -- until that point, it has proven more useful than I'm certain most on the right or left could have anticipated. This is what happens when you take a practical approach and are willing to work across the aisle to help get things done, even if they don't always seem like the 100% perfect solution your base would want. This is a perfect example.

It works, it may not be 100% perfect for any side -- but it works as a compromise. Sure, I don't necessarily have a problem with PACs being allowed to run ads naming a candidate 60 days before the general election and maybe a revamp of the legislation is in order to deal with the growth of new PACs, 527s, etc. Yet, on the other hand without this legislation wealthy individuals are just allowed free reign to wipe out opponents by canvassing the airwaves with ads. I agree with mykevermin (odd) that to a certain degree, this helps promote free speech...I suppose that makes me less of a conservative *shakes head*
 
since mccain isnt conservative on the issues id like for him to be conservative on, im actually leaning towards obama. i figure at least hes not gung ho about continuing the war. not that it matters for me in the great state of california, obama will win our votes.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's a touch hyperbolic to say "do away with the First Amendment," no?

You can look at it that way; I, OTOH, look at it as a means of removing the "cash on hand = prominent candidate" element to elections. Several candidates in this cycle couldn't generate the money to get a campaign rolling. Some of them you may have already forgotten: Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel (I think he's out anyway), etc.

Why are these candidates inferior to those currently likely to win the primaries? Can you point out to me, on a policy level, why that may be the case? Or is it more likely that money = legitimacy in campaigns? When that's removed (or, realistically, reduced), candidates can compete on the terms of actual issues - we can't write off Ron Paul because he doesn't have money to compete, or Huckabee, or others (hell, even McCain in the middle/late of 2007!). That finances are related to how loudly a candidate is heard is an impediment to "free speech," in my opinion.

If we can silence partisan organizations in disguise, such as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, then *great*, IMO. Free speech is often misused in campaign seasons to promote biased agendas by organizations that hide their true partisan underpinnings. Get rid of 'em.[/quote]

Mitt Romney.
 
[quote name='t0llenz']I get the arguments about McCain-Feingold being an infringement upon free speech. If it's unconstitutional, let it be struck down -- until that point, it has proven more useful than I'm certain most on the right or left could have anticipated. This is what happens when you take a practical approach and are willing to work across the aisle to help get things done, even if they don't always seem like the 100% perfect solution your base would want. This is a perfect example.

It works, it may not be 100% perfect for any side -- but it works as a compromise. Sure, I don't necessarily have a problem with PACs being allowed to run ads naming a candidate 60 days before the general election and maybe a revamp of the legislation is in order to deal with the growth of new PACs, 527s, etc. Yet, on the other hand without this legislation wealthy individuals are just allowed free reign to wipe out opponents by canvassing the airwaves with ads. I agree with mykevermin (odd) that to a certain degree, this helps promote free speech...I suppose that makes me less of a conservative *shakes head*[/quote]

If I found a video of McCain blowing a dog or sitting down with shadowy types pledging to start WW3 the day after inauguration and the mainstream media wouldn't air the video, how would I put out the video for the masses to see without violating McCain-Feingold?

If I put that advertisement out a few weeks before election day, I can be fined.

From what I've seen so far, the two parties don't enforce the law against each other. However, I'm sure they'll have no qualms using it against an upstart third party or any credible independent.

It's an infringement on the first amendment because it potentially fines free speech. Waiting for the Supreme Court to strike down a law could take decades and there's no telling how the court will look by that time.
 
I voted for Sharpton 4 years ago because of the worthless Kerry-Bush ticket.
I plan on voting Obamma but if Hilary cheats and wins I will have to write in Ron Paul. I know he won't win but thats only because humans are inherently stupid.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If I found a video of McCain blowing a dog or sitting down with shadowy types pledging to start WW3 the day after inauguration and the mainstream media wouldn't air the video, how would I put out the video for the masses to see without violating McCain-Feingold?

If I put that advertisement out a few weeks before election day, I can be fined.

From what I've seen so far, the two parties don't enforce the law against each other. However, I'm sure they'll have no qualms using it against an upstart third party or any credible independent.

It's an infringement on the first amendment because it potentially fines free speech. Waiting for the Supreme Court to strike down a law could take decades and there's no telling how the court will look by that time.[/QUOTE]
Use blogs and other alternative news media, including Drudge who'd be all over a story like that like white on rice.

Also, first party candidates do try to smack each other with the regs, look at what happened to the Swift Vets and MoveOn.org with their mass fines after 2004.
 
[quote name='t0llenz']Use blogs and other alternative news media, including Drudge who'd be all over a story like that like white on rice.

Also, first party candidates do try to smack each other with the regs, look at what happened to the Swift Vets and MoveOn.org with their mass fines after 2004.[/quote]

If I had a video like that, I'd rather not run the risk of being fined in the case McCain wins and labels blogs and alternate news media as advertising.

Oh, wait, my first amendment just got infringed.

Think about Cindy McCain and Percocet while responding that McCain would never go after somebody trying to air something negative about him or his.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/drugs/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top