Skip to main content

View Diary: IPDI nonsense: "must protect media from bloggers!" (117 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  is this a fight we can win? (none)
    I mean, not to be too cynical, but is the FEC really open to reasonable arguments, or just in the pocket of the administration?

    (Also, kos, I'm not sure what this woman's being an academic has to do with her report being a load of hooey... not all academics are bloviators & not all bloviators are academics.  The anti-academe themes on the front page the last few months are, well, weird.)

    •  don't forget (none)
      that the administration loves the blogd when it is convenient for them... Jeff gannon
    •  By law, both parties have an equal number of reps. (none)
      •  according to their web site (4.00)
        the chairman was appointed by Reagan, Vice-Chairman by Bush.  Of the four other commisioners, two were appointed by Clinton, one by Reagan, one by Bush.

        Seems a little skewed, but maybe who appointed them doesn't reflect their political bent too directly?  (I see that one of the Reagan appointees was re-appointed by Clinton for example.)

        Just curious - thanks for info.

    •  Yeah we can win, it's called the first amendment (none)
      The thing is, the FEC has been able to manage some amount of campaign finance management because they've only applied it to dedicated political organizations.  Once they try to down to the level of regulating the speaking and writing of individuals, the Supreme Court will smack them down.

      Ultimately, campaign finance rules will never work.  Applying limitations to donations is, in effect, controlling free expression.  They can try to do it, but with each new rules comes new loop holes, and because, at a fundamental level it's all hooked into the first amendment, there will always be loopholes.

      The only realistic approach to this is a system of reporting.  No rules, no limitations, but you have to tell everybody exactly where you get your money and support from.  If you are coordinating with some blog, then you have to report it.  If you don't, we boil you in oil or some such.  

      The threat to Democracy isn't the money itself, it's the quid pro quo.  If we all know who's backing you and where the money is coming from, then we know who you're likely to be wedded to come legsilation time.  Trying to limit anything is, ultimately, an execercise in futility.

      •  Campaign Finance (4.00)
        Applying limitations to donations is, in effect, controlling free expression.

        The Supreme Court's nonsensical equation of money and speech is the root of the problem. Limiting my ability to spend money in no way abridges my ability to say anything. Giving wealthy folks more 'speech' than the poor makes me physically ill.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site