Skip to main content

View Diary: HR 1606, the debate (41 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  3 bad arguments (0+ / 0-)
    1. You argue (repeatedly) that CDT is bad because the proponents are bad.  I believe we call that an ad hominem argument, and it's just a way to avoid the issues.
    1. You say the taht the FEC is under court order to pass regs bringing the inernet under BCRA. That does NOT give any evidence that Kos is in danger, because as you admit, you have no idea what the regs will be.  So again - you have no evidence Kos is in danger.
    1. the argument that "unlimited campaign expentitures" are not a risk because there is no evidence for them is totally disingenious because the reason there is no evidence for these expenditures is because no disclosures were required for the types of expenditures made by FiredUp and similar groups.  That's the whole Point - that unless campaign finance laws apply to the internet, we'll never know what expenditures were made.

    (Also, you're just repeating your argument that there's no evidence that huge expenditures will be made -- without providing any evidence that I asked for: for your assertion that Kos is in danger)

    •  Without repeating myself (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      macdust
      1. I've argued here why the CDT proposal itself is premature at best, and potentially bad b/c of the allocation principle it introduces.

      2.  See #1.  Tell me what kind of regulations for this space would be "good". I'm not arguing that this site is in imminent danger; I'm saying that anything other than 1606 opens the door.

      3.  It is simply untrue that "there is no evidence for such expenditures", etc.  Regulated political entities had to file reports on internet expenditures from 2003-present.  That hasn't changed.  The Thune bloggers?   Payments reported to the FEC.  MoveOn's online advertising?  Reported and disclosed.  And use some common sense: if money was spent online to influence your vote in 2004, you'd have noticed it.
      •  Try to be consistent (0+ / 0-)

        So now you're clearly saying that DailyKos is not in imminent danger? If so, you should edit this diary to make that clear, because the talking points clearly imply something different:

        for example, its proponents are unwilling to say whether it even protects DailyKos.  And given that its proponents have made it clear in the past that they don't want sites like this to operate freely, no politician who claims to be a "friend of the netroots" should want to clear the path for this site's regulation.  

        ... and in your first post: "The FEC couldn't have made it any clearer.  HR 1606 passes, or they regulate.  "

        Also: "use some common sense: if money was spent online to influence your vote in 2004, you'd have noticed it. "
        yeah, I did.  And it worried me, because it's completely undercover.  Still does.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site