Time to Listen to Independents

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

Finally some good news!

[William Thornton]

[Dave Roberts]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

[Dave Roberts]

[William Thornton]

Why is it in gummit's interest to restrict speech if it is a business or a newspaper? How is it different when unions express themselves or the chamber of commerce or the NY Times?

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

[Dave Roberts]

What I am hearing from the voices on the Right who are supporting Citizens United is that they believe managed democracy is better than free democracy. The perfect example of this is the gubernatorial election we just had in Virginia. The moneyed interests manipulated the process to the point that real people had almost no role whatever in the election. We were faced with a choice between a right-wing nut who insisted on trans-vaginal unltrasounds before abortions to frighten women away and who frivolously spent state money on lawsuits about Obamacare. He also covered his own and the present governor's tracks for accepting money from firms doing business with the states. Then the Left gave us a candidate who had never run for office or held one and who was the DNC money man. No wonder only 47% of Virginians even bothered to vote. The people see what is happening and are giving up on democracy as the expression of their political will because the money is determining who will run and who will be elected.

It is already evident that money from both sides is tainting elections. I can't see, William, how newspapers fit in the same plane as do the constant attack ads that are running. In VA, we were subjected to the ads from both sides that were not sponsored by either candidate. Newspapers often didn't give their endorsement until the week before, and most of the endorsements were tepid at best. One can't say that for all the ads that ran on TV and radio.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

And really, gummit has a "right to interfere"? Are you starting from the position that gummit has certain inalienable rights and citizens have rights and freedoms only when gummit sees no reason to interfere?

[William Thornton]

Is there freedom of the press only if reporters are relatively free?

You've run off a cliff, bro.

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

[William Thornton]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

I don't think there is any intention to limit the free speech of any entity, be it public or private, corporate, independently owned, or individual. Limiting the amount that can be made in political contribution or that can be used to purchase broadcast time does not put a clamp on free speech. It simply levels the playing field. Just because you have the money to buy broadcast time doesn't mean you are entitled to use it to advance your political cause or candidate. Maxing out the contribution limits for any individual, business, corporate entity, non-profit, at a relatively low level is fair. And that should include PAC's as well as individual candidates, and it should be a one-limit-covers-all kind of thing. You've got a maximum of $5,000 to contribute. Divide it up wisely.

I'm also a proponent of bringing back the free and equal time provision for the print and broadcast media. If journalism is to have credibility, it must be neutral, and if it must provide equal time for opposing views, it is required to guard against bias. That doesn't mean that Rush Lamebrain would have to provide the equal and opposite view on his program, because that wouldn't come off well, and it would be hypocritical. But it does mean that stations which carry the Lamebrain would also have to carry Rachel Maddow, in an equally attractive time slot. That would also prevent a lot of the incitement to violence that goes on, particularly in the extremist right wing media, especially if the laws against it aren't being enforced.

[Neil Heath]

One point I don't see in this discussion is the deplorable practice of allowing covert spending for political purposes, so that those giving and those receiving are not required to be transparent in the least. I think every PAC, campaign committee, and candidate should have to disclose who has given them support of any kind, and how much they received. I have a problem with allowing anyone to pour massive donations into a campaign with no record of that ever being made public.

When PACs run ads for a candidate, I want to know who paid for that PAC, so I know if I should give any credence to the ad. (My default response is to assume they are lying, or telling half-truths at best.)

I would like to see them all make regular, publicly available reports of their donors and their spending throughout the campaign. I know research can reveal at least some of that info for individual donors to candidates, but I want it published for all to see, before we vote.

Our electoral process is not well served by secrets.

[ET]

[ET]