12/11/2003

9 Comments

1. I think that the concept of preventing those with deep pockets to sway an election is admirable.

   However, this decision doesn’t bring that concept to reality, and besides that, it appears to tread on a whole bunch of our nation’s most basic principles (but that’s never happened before, has it?).

   I guess need to read more about it before I call it completely stupid - the only other info I’ve heard on it was from NPR on the way home from work yesterday (our local conservative drive-time talk show is lame, and listening to NPR gives me a daily reminder of what I can’t stand about it).

   Patrick, I wouldn’t mind seeing some itemized (or line-by-line) opinions of yours if you have the time.

   A question for your readers (no, this isn’t my site. Apologies in advance): are any of you really influenced by campaign ads?

   If a campaign is based on totally negative “bashing” (that’s not something anyone in particular said, Patterico), then I’m typically influenced to pay more attention to the other candidate(s). I don’t believe that campaign ads ever influence my decisions in a positive way, though.

   Wouldn’t this particular free speech-prevention case apply mostly to those who don’t bother to get out there and get the details of a candidate’s platform for themselves and instead rely on advertisements to help them make up their minds?

   Comment by Laudio — 12/11/2003 @ 9:46 am

2. “I think that the concept of preventing those with deep pockets to sway an election is admirable.”

   I plan to have much, much more to say about this. However, I strongly disagree with the above statement.

   For a dissertion about why, I commend to you my September 7 post on the issue (which I cited in my post below titled “Appalling”).

   In essence, I believe that the idea that people (or corporations — and corporations tend to own newspapers, by the way) are disallowed from expressing opinions about candidates right before an election is Soviet-style stuff. This is a huge issue that goes to the core of what this country is supposed to be all about.

   Comment by Patterico — 12/11/2003 @ 10:02 am

3. So the fellow with the most toys wins?

   I see your point, of course, and I also think that putting a ban on campaign ads like this is “Soviet-style stuff.” Wouldn’t it be nice, though (I suppose I’m living in Fantasy Land here), if people could make rational decisions based upon the the ideology of a candidate rather than what an ad (or a newspaper) says about them?

   I sometimes feel like we live in a society of lemmings.

   I’d like to think that there is an ideal behind the concept of those who have no money having as much influence over an election as those who have plenty, but first, that’s a pipe dream, and second, I don’t know that there’s a way of approaching it that doesn’t border on socialism.

   Umm… this whole campaign finance reform deal wasn’t cooked up by someone with lots of money, was it??

   Comment by Laudio — 12/11/2003 @ 10:36 am

4. I think that if we are going to live in a society that enjoys the freedom to contract (capitalism) and the freedom of speech, this is how it’s gotta be. Did you read my Sept. 7 rant?

   The beneficiaries are incumbents and the media (which already has a bullhorn and is only too happy to see yours taken away).

   Comment by Patterico — 12/11/2003 @ 12:03 pm

5. this is the first step in regulating the free press.

   Comment by jason — 12/11/2003 @ 1:17 pm

6. this is the first step in regulating the free press.

   Comment by jason — 12/11/2003 @ 1:18 pm

7. And Friday’s Wall Street Journal (which I read in dead tree format) has an article regarding workarounds for those who still wish to use money for political purpose.

   Laws only effect those who obey them, those who get caught, and those impacted by the mess they create.

   Comment by triticale — 12/12/2003 @ 8:11 pm

8. Mickey Kaus says the worst parts of this law apply only to corporations, and can thus be easily circumvented by unincorporated associations. Unfortunately, the precedent has now been set, so the next law to clean up that “loophole” will probably be upheld by the lower courts. Our only hope is that by then, one of the five Injustices in the majority will have been replaced.

   Comment by Xrlq — 12/12/2003 @ 9:49 pm

9. Right. The problem is not so much the clearly unconstitutional law, but the Supreme Court’s declaration that it is constitutional.

   Comment by Patterico — 12/12/2003 @ 10:16 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.