Teacher Fired for Porn Sues for $9 Million  |   Home  |   Bucher to Run in the 99th?

Assaulting Free Speech

You know… I hate to do this, but principle must triumph over personal attachments. 

I really like Representative Don Pridemore.  He’s a genuine guy with great conservative values.  Unfortunately, he is embarking on an initiative that is absolutely wrong. 

Rep. Pridemore is introducing a bill that would force third-party groups to disclose their financial backers.  While I understand the impetus to force those who fund issue ads to reveal themselves, I am also a firm believer that free speech also means the right to anonymous speech.  Forcing groups like the Greater Wisconsin Committee or the Coalition for American Families to reveal their backers would be fun fodder for political reporters, it accomplishes absolutely nothing to improve elections.  We know that the GWC is generally liberal and the CAF if generally conservative.  What does disclosing their backers do except confirm that characterization? 

But forcing donors to reveal themselves will have one very real effect… it will silence people from engaging in the political debate.  The truth is that many people don’t donate to people.  They donate to causes.  Pro gun.  Anti abortion.  Pro smoking ban.  Anti tax increase.  Pro single payer health care.  Anti illegal immigration.  Whatever.  People put their money behind causes in which they believe.  At the same time, they must weigh their advocacy with their real lives.  What could be the implications if a union teacher gave money to a pro school choice group?  Might that teacher face repercussions from his union?  Maybe.  What about the business executive in whose business does a lot of government work but supports groups who want to cut government spending?  Would a purchasing agent in the Department of Administration hold that against her when interpreting an RFP response?  Could be.  People have regular lives.  Yes, they have causes that they would like to support or oppose, but they may not be willing to do so if it might cost them their livelihood. 

Anonymous speech should be protected.  Always.

Posted by Owen at 2229 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

1. What do these people have to hide. Can’t imagine why anyone would be against this. Purchased speech strains the idea of free speech. Our founding fathers would be appalled at this oligarchic control of the political process.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 0651 hrs
   
   
   

2. Speaking of oligarchic control of the political process, in the founding fathers’ time only land owning men were allowed to vote…

   Posted by Matt on April 17, 2008 at 0750 hrs
   
   
   

3. Keith,

   Ask the members of WMC who have gotten threatening calls from Jim Doyle and his henchmen.  Ask the lobbyists and individuals who attended a Senate Republican fundraisier only to find Chuck Chvala sitting at the door with clip board, literally taking names.

   The Doyle administration has gone well beyond intimidating donors during elections to extorting support from associations for public policy measures that are completely contrary to their interests.

   Next they will start telling groups who they can and can not hire.  Wake up.

   Is Don Pridemore really so naive as to think his proposal would level the playing field or somehow improve the debate?

   Liberal special interests will always be more adept at hiding their true agendas and using legally mandated dues to deliver their message.  Look at WEAC and the State Bar.

   These kinds of “reforms” are at best incumbent protection and at worst, unilateral disarmament for us scary bitter small town folks clinging to our religion and guns.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 0801 hrs
   
   
   

4. Geez, Owen, I sort of like knowing who my politician is owned by. No disclosure means that even foreign interests can affect our elections. Even criminals.

   My values dictate disclosure, and I would expect that from the Right as well.

   Posted by Jack Lohman on April 17, 2008 at 0806 hrs
   
   
   

5. You are absolutely right.  I should be free to reveal or not reveal what causes I financially support.  If I were to choose not to disclose that information, I might have a very good reason.  Generally speaking, I want everyone to know what causes I do and do not support because I want more people to agree with me.  But that is my decision to make.  There should be no law that forces me to do so.

   Posted by Jennifer on April 17, 2008 at 0819 hrs
   
   
   

6. I agree with you Keith… and while we’re at it… let’s repeal the 4th Amendment as well and let the police come into our homes whenever they want to verify that no crime is ongoing.  After all, if you’re a law abiding citizen, what do you have to hide?  And the small amount of inconvenience that would be caused is far outweighed by the amount of crime that would be prevented.

   ** Sadly, I know that a lot of people actually didn’t read the above statement as sarcasm, and think thats a great idea. Those people are the ones I fear the most. **

   Posted by Nick on April 17, 2008 at 0832 hrs
   
   
   

7. Absolutely!

   For the political system to be transparent we have to know who is dishing out the cash. My god, it’s the least we can do and that is a damn distance from public financing. Though this is a good idea this is of course banking on the electorate being engaged and putting two and two together.

   The incumbent protection argument is bogus. Maybe if we knew who some of their donors were they would no longer be incumbents.

   If you are going to play in the system you better have the guts to let us know who you are. That’s why I dropped the pseudonym, even though many of my clients are conservative and could be reading this blog right now.

   And that’s why I cannot understand this reasoning.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 0834 hrs
   
   
   

8. Direct contributions to a candidate already must be disclosed, pursuant to a maze of statutory and regulatory that require lawyers to interpret. 

   To some it sounds simple and/or appealing to require more “disclosure,” specifically of activity that is independent of any candidate’s campaign.  This supposedly is more “transparent” and “open.”  But the devil’s in the details.  Actual proposals to regulate independent speech inevitably will lead to layers of rules that would limit and regulate speech.  As the Wis RTL case demonstrated vis a vis McCain-Feingold, this simply forces regular citizens to hire lawyers to get the Constitution upheld.

   Those who argue for more regulation of First Amendment-protected speech need to rethink the road on which they have embarked.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 0834 hrs
   
   
   

9. Keith,

   If you’re going to play in the system you better have the guts to let us know who you are? 

   Incumbent politicians are the US and the rest of us poor saps are the YOU.  This is the exact recipe for tyranny that the founding fathers set out to prevent. “Congress shall make no law…..” 

   What line of work is it that allows you to be so completely oblivious to how government really works?  If you don’t believe that politicians harass, bribe and exhort just take a look at Michael McGee Jackson Jr.  He is only an extreme case in that he threatened physical violence against citizens who had the guts to interact with government.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 0848 hrs
   
   
   

10. Keith mentioned it, but another alternative is public funding of campaigns, where the public candidate receives matching funds when opposing groups advertise against him. And candidates can opt out if they prefer private money. That makes it constitutional.

    Oh, I know. The right-wing doesn’t want their money going to candidates they don’t agree with. Forget that that is already happening through the back door, as the massive taxes that result from our corrupt system get passed to all citizens, right and left alike. And at hundreds of times more than if we simply paid for the elections up front.

    Does anybody use a calculator out there?

    See http://www.wicleanelections.org/opposing-arguments.html

    Posted by Jack Lohman on April 17, 2008 at 0855 hrs
    
    
    

11. Since I’ve openly blogged advocating the principles in Pridemore’s bill, I think that he’s right.

    See my blog.

    Posted by dad29 on April 17, 2008 at 0858 hrs
    
    
    

12. Liberal special interests will always be more adept at hiding their true agendas

    Except of course when you sit on a talk show panel and talk about third party campaign ads? How does Charlie introduce you?

    If you’re going to play in the system you better have the guts to let us know who you are?

    Is this where you reveal how you make a living?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 0918 hrs
    
    
    

13. Please Dad, I have a weak heart!

    Deb, what you have advocated about in #9 is unfortunate, but to quote conservative fan favorite Edmund Burke, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

    But again, this transparency thing is only as good as to the level of engagement of the electorate.

    All too often freedom for some means a free ride. Sometimes you have to stick your neck out. I am sure you are not advocating that we have citizens that are afraid to lay it on the line. Or else we as a country might as well pack it up and for someone to contribute to a campaign and we have to protect these poor dears is unacceptable if we pretend to be a bold country.

    Maybe that’s our problem lately.

    What do we keep hearing, “freedom isn’t free?” At least based on at what television advertising costs.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 0925 hrs
    
    
    

14. Is this where you reveal how you make a living?

    Did I read this right? This came from “pjr”?

    Isn’t anonymity great?

    Posted by Jack Lohman on April 17, 2008 at 0929 hrs
    
    
    

15. If you’re going to play in the system you better have the guts to let us know who you are?

    Its topics like this that I don’t know where to start.

    On one hand I’m shocked that we as “Americans” have come so far in forgetting what the principles we say we espouse really mean.

    That makes me sad and fearful at the same time.

    The ease and willfull desire of people like Keith, but millions of others to exhibit such an eleemosynary surrender of their rights to the government makes me fearful. 

    And the worst part is if ONLY you were just surrendering your own rights, but you aren’t… You’re capitulating everyone elses along with yours. 

    On a side note:  Deb, I REALLY enjoy your commentary on Sunday Insight!

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 0934 hrs
    
    
    

16. All too often freedom for some means a free ride. Sometimes you have to stick your neck out. I am sure you are not advocating that we have citizens that are afraid to lay it on the line.

    I hope I’m understanding you correctly, but when did the enjoyment of freedom become something that must be earned?

    Last time I looked it was inalienable.

    I think the great tragedy in this country is that people who desire to be free must constantly fight to keep their freedom.

    Oh for the day when we could count on our constitution to protect us.  History has proven that the assault on freedom is never ending.  Thats unfortunate.

    But to suggest that freedom must be earned, or labored for.  Thats a shame.

    I hear people say that if you don’t like the system go vote, go organize, do whatever.  And certainly thats the only option now.

    But its a tragedy that its gotten to that point.

    Its a tragedy that if you want your freedom, you have to take personal time outside of work to spend time that could be enjoyed with friends and family merely fighting for the freedom that ought have been guaranteed by the constitution.

    Its a tragedy that you can’t get up, go to work, earn your living and KNOW that your rights are protected.

    Its a tragedy that the only option now for those who believe in freedom is to have to devote a significant part of your personal time to trying to hold onto something that our founding fathers drafted a pretty unmistakable document to protect?

    I’m working, I have very little free time.  And I hear people who have taken my freedom say “well if you don’t like it go campaign, go support your cause, go fight for your cause”  There comes a point where you spend so much time fighting for the freedom that ought be guaranteed that a logical person MUST look in the mirror and wonder if they aren’t better to just give up to the inevitable and spend the time they would have spend fighting the inevitable enjoying what they have left of their freedom in leisure instead of this constand ‘struggle’ to fight for what was suppose to be guaranteed.

    As Deb cited “Congress shall make no law”... My how those would would bastardize our rights have found wiggle room where their ought be none, and exploited that wiggle room into absolutely any definition that pleases.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 0949 hrs
    
    
    

17. Jack,

    I think it ironic at best that someone who works for Conservative special interest groups makes the statement that “Liberal special interest groups are adept at hiding their true agendas”, after sitting on a TV panel discussing third party ads with no mention of their own involvement.

    Ms Jordahl chooses to make herself a public figure, I do not.

    And I am 100% behind the idea of public financing of campaigns.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 0949 hrs
    
    
    

18. Why do I suspect I won’t find the words “play in the system” and “transparent” in the constitution? 

    The political system you serve Keith, is not law, but an artificial creation of various factions that facilitates the ends they wish to achieve.    The actual requirements for government and elections are contained in the constitution.  No private citizen is obliged by law to play by rules the factions find convenient.  No private citizen is prevented from playing outside the norms the factions have established for their convenience.  No private citizen is prevented from working to elminate the factions themselves.   

    I am sorry our natural rights inconvenience you.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 0957 hrs
    
    
    

19. This proposal is almost absurd as Rep. Kesslers proposal to take away our right to vote for judicial candidates. THis all has to do with Butler losing and the liberal sour grapes.

    I guess we should all redo the entire founding of our counrty because the Federalist papers were done anonymously. What idiots go along with these things?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1000 hrs
    
    
    

20. I hope I’m understanding you correctly, but when did the enjoyment of freedom become something that must be earned?

    Since our founding fathers earned it during the revolutionary war.

    Sometimes, ss current events around the world easily demonstrate and the rhetoric around the phrase “freedom is not free” seeks to clarify. it takes a little more than just arms length involvement and paying the taxman to establish and maintain a democracy.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1000 hrs
    
    
    

21. Dare I say that the ensuing posts prove our points about this Iraq occupation. No taxes to pay for it. No sending OUR kids or ourselves over to the job. No support for the Iraq GI bill. Just slapping a “support the Troops” bumper sticker on the back of our cars.

    These posts sure demonstrate no understanding of the sacrifice it takes to preserve this country or what it took to launch it in the first place.

    Yeah, sometimes you have to get up in the morning to preserve your freedom. With rights, comes responsibilities, not just letting the “hired help” as you seemingly regard them in Iraq do the job, though of course that job is so poorly defined by this administration and John McCain.

    No wonder we are screwed.

    Cheap patriotism at its finest.

    This is so instructive. I wish more people would be reading this tread.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1027 hrs
    
    
    

22. Sometimes, ss current events around the world easily demonstrate and the rhetoric around the phrase “freedom is not free” seeks to clarify.

    Protection from foreign invaders is an entirely different concept from what I was referring to.

    Since our founding fathers earned it during the revolutionary war.

    My point exactly.  All the sacrifices made to create a form of government that would guarantee individual rights, and I believe they made a pretty iron clad document to do so.  So that future generations ought not have to continually fight the same battles as they did.

    But look where we are… having to fight from our freedom every day.  This time internally.  Honestly, I much prefer the concept of defending our freedom from foreign threats than those within.

    I won’t disagree with the reality of how it is. I’ll merely suggest that its a shame it is this way.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1036 hrs
    
    
    

23. xxpilot, there has to be some reasonable middle ground on disclosure, and some folks out there will not give an inch. How about 527s—both right and left—disclosing their top 20% of contributors?  Even down to the people who file their taxes with a SSI#, and not just pass their dollars to a front group?

    Anything? Or is total secrecy the only option?

    Why not allow, as in my post #10, public funding of campaigns with matching funds for issue ads so they can be competed against without forcing this big, bad disclosure thingy?

    No, the real “tragedy” is that we need regulation at all, but the truth is that there are some greedy people out there who will not stop until they have it all and the little guy has none. Soon we will be just like Mexico where 13 or so families really own the country.

    And pjr, I agree, but wanted to give you flak anyway. I’m not impressed either with the so-called “pundits” hiding their true special interests. You can see my disclosure on my website at
    http://moneyedpoliticians.wordpress.com/about/

    Posted by Jack Lohman on April 17, 2008 at 1039 hrs
    
    
    

24. “There has to be middle ground on disclosure.”  No, actually there doesn’t.

    “With rights come responsibilities.”  No, they don’t.    Rights are natural, inalienable.    They are not grants of you, Keith, or of government or of a constitution.    They do not come with any strings.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1054 hrs
    
    
    

25. If you guys want to put what groups you support on a billboard go ahead, nobody will stop you.  Just don’t make others who don’t want to publicize what groups they support to do the same.

    Posted by Benjamin on April 17, 2008 at 1056 hrs
    
    
    

26. All the sacrifices made to create a form of government that would guarantee individual rights, and I believe they made a pretty iron clad document to do so.  So that future generations ought not have to continually fight the same battles as they did.

    Come on xxp, you are blowing my mind with this stuff.

    That form of government they created is democracy, by its very nature it carries a responsibilities and requires involvement by each and every individual citizen,

    If you want to farm out your responsibilities to political hacks that is fine, I don’t.

    I have a quotation sitting framed above my desk, it reads;

    “We must recognize that democracy is a life, and involves continual struggle.

    It is only as those of every generation who love democracy resist with all their might the encroachments of its enemies that the ideals of representative government can ever be nearly approximated.”

    Can you guess the author?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1058 hrs
    
    
    

27. “With rights come responsibilities.”

    Ahhh, I see. So we ought to eliminate all regulations and all laws. People really do want to do good. Really!!! Trust me.

    Thanks, but no thanks. If you volunteer to be a politician that writes laws to regulate and deregulate, there must be controls. And who politicians get their money from is one of them. Even if it is filtered through some legal loophole.

    Posted by Jack Lohman on April 17, 2008 at 1110 hrs
    
    
    

28. Jack, money given to politicians is already declared.

    Posted by Benjamin on April 17, 2008 at 1118 hrs
    
    
    

29. Unless it’s through the back door, Benjamin, like giving it to the parties and the parties giving to candidates, or giving to 527s so they spend it on the politicians. Same thing, different route.

    Besides, I don’t want disclosure of who’s bribing my politician, I don’t want her bribed at all. Not even by the special interests I agree with.

    It may sound strange, but I prefer a clean political system. If politicians are going to be beholden to their funders, I want those funders to be the taxpayers.

    Posted by Jack Lohman on April 17, 2008 at 1137 hrs
    
    
    

30. “With rights come responsibilities.” No, they don’t.  Rights are natural, inalienable.  They are not grants of you, Keith, or of government or of a constitution.  They do not come with any strings.

    No. Then we don’t have a society. Everything is a social contract where or not you like it.

    To wit, Benjamin Franklin, in the “Apology for Printers” published in 1731, suggested there were responsibilities saying, “I have also always refus’d to print such things as might do real injury to any Person….” No Rupert Murdock he.

    If you ever read Poor Richard’s Almanack Franklin makes this connection very clear.

    Ayn Rand, by the way, was not a founding father.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1151 hrs
    
    
    

31. Soon we will be just like Mexico where 13 or so families really own the country.

    Actually I believe that the recent trend more suggests the only entity that will eventually own everything is the government.

    Come on xxp, you are blowing my mind with this stuff

    Only takes a slight breeze to knock a feather off a lightbulb now doesn’t it.

    That form of government they created is democracy,

    Good god… How plebeian…

    Well actually its not…  its a Republic… a Republic created inside of a framework of the constitution.

    See I know you populists would love for it to be a democracy.  Majority (tyranny) rule.

    Our government was set up as a republic with a constitution that made it so there would be certain things that can never be done no matter how many people want to do them. 

    And unfortunately, we now have to fight for those things too.

    I’m sure guys like yourself love to purport the misconception that this is a democracy and that you get 51 out of 100 people to support something and suddenly everything is up for grabs.  It isn’t suppose to be that way.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1206 hrs
    
    
    

32. Like most of our current election law, this would be blatantly unconstitutional, and a bad idea.  Everyone who has mentioned that teh founding fathers would have suported this is just wrong.  Anonymous pamphleting was all the rage back in the day.

    The government is supposed to serve you, not the other way around.  All this would do is dissuade people from participating in the political process while not doing a thing to make elections cleaner.  It would also help incumbents (of course) by making it harder for outsiders to raise money.

    By the way, it shouldn’t matter to you who is supporting someone.  You should be voting on ideas. 

    And don’t even get me started on public financing.

    There should literally be no camaign laws.  You should be able to register to run for president in 5 minutes.  You should be able to say whatever you want, give anyone you want as much money as you want, and buy as much air time as people are willing to sell you.

    Political speech is supposed to be the most protected speech we have, but it routinely gets trampled and restricted.  But I’m sure it’s all well itnentioned, and certainly not beneficial to the people who are actually passing said laws.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1206 hrs
    
    
    

33. KR, Rights do not come with responsibility.  That is why they are rights. Rights are the actions decisions that we retain from the state of nature, from outside of society.  The Constitution spells out all of the ways in which the government is permitted to intrude on our rights, and that’s it.  There are no conditions on our freedom of speech. 

    That last sentence I wrote is a stupid sentence.  I should never have had to write it.  It’s like saying fire is hot.  I mean, you made me type “freedom has no restrictions.”  That pisses me off.

    That’s how iditoic your argument is.  “We want free speech, except for this.  Cause I don’t like it.” 

    Let me know when you’re ready to have a mature discussion about politics.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1212 hrs
    
    
    

34. Paul, I would think we all would like to know the identity of our hijackers.

    This is fun. Never saw so much intellectual thin ice.

    Correct me if I’m wrong pilot, but I believe you were a big fan of democracy over the elevation of the mediocrity Gabelman to the state supreme court.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1214 hrs
    
    
    

35. How is anyone hijacking anything? 

    You could become one of them, you know?  It doesn’t take any qualification.  You just have to donate yourself.  Or, perhaps you don’t care as much as others.  Perhaps you’d rather see those who care enough to donate their time and energy prevented from doing so.  That would make you even!  Sure they were willing to put their resources behind a cause they believe in while you sat around on the couch eating that salsa/velveeta microwave concoction, but by gum, why should actual willingess to work have anything to do with anything.

    I like that you view political speech as hijacking, because it both sullies a noble pursuit, and makes light of hijacking.  As metaphors go it’s right up there with your average internat nazi comparison. 

    “They’re Hijacking our country!  Those damn anonymous donors!  The Conservative ones are probably supporting dirty things like anti-choice legislation and tax cutting!  The brigands!  We must find out who they are. 

    Ve ef vays of making you talk.”

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1224 hrs
    
    
    

36. “Everything is a social contract.”.  No, Keith.  That is only true in the socialistic and other statist philosophies such as you would inflict upon the world.  In the world in which we here live, government has been established to “secure the blessings of liberty”.    Not vice versa.  Liberty is preexisting and is not part of any social contract.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1232 hrs
    
    
    

37. Oh Paul. Get some class. This is a discussion, not a kindergarten.

    Spending loads of money on a political campaign is not hijacking? What in the hell is it then? Oh, I know. It’s a “noble pursuit!”

    Posted by Jack Lohman on April 17, 2008 at 1237 hrs
    
    
    

38. Well Jacko, in my experience, hijackers use guns to force people to give them stuff and fly them places.  So I would call something hijacking if someone was being forced to do something against their will at the threat of some coercive penalty. 

    For instance, if some guy cared about the plight of the two-breasted northern finchbin, but was raised in a family morontologists which worship and eat the birds in question as part of their redemption seeking, he might want to support his cause anonymously. 

    If, however, Jack Lohman comes along and forces him to either reveal his identity or pay a 1000 fine or go to jail, well, that I would call hijacking. 

    What you call hijacking I would call shopping.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1244 hrs
    
    
    

39. So, let me get this straight. If you are bribing my politician or funding a wacko political campaign to transfer taxpayer assets from my family to yours, I have no right to know who you are or what your motives are?

    I see. NOW I understand.

    Posted by Jack Lohman on April 17, 2008 at 1258 hrs
    
    
    

40. Looks like you have run out of argument Paul and now have reached for the personal attacks. A little bitter. No?

    By the way, most people would disagree that social contract is confined to socialistic societies. Oops sorry. Guess I made a democracy reference there.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1303 hrs
    
    
    

41. What personal attack?  If they are taxpayer assets, I cannot transfer them from your family to mine.  They are taxpayer assets, as you stated. 

    What YOU should be concerned about is that a politician would support taking shit away from you and giving it to me.  Vote against that.  Who cares who is advocating it? Also, the government shouldn’t have that power, but that’s a different argument.

    
    Why does knowing who I am tell you what my motives are?  It tells you nothing of the sort. 

    We have a social contract.  It’s the Constitution.  It puts no requires nothing when preserving our liberties.  Well, except standing up to stupid policies like this that intend to curtail your liberties.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1309 hrs
    
    
    

42. Jack, why does it matter who gave him/her the money, if you don’t like what that politician is doing you can engage in speech of your own and also vote against him/her.

    Posted by Benjamin on April 17, 2008 at 1311 hrs
    
    
    

43. Somehow a few points have been cast aside in this debate.

    First, we are not talking about contributions to candidates here. We are talking about issue advocacy - something that is far different.

    Second, with this type of regulation, we may or may not be talking about political speech. That is the crux of the problem.

    Who decides what is political speech? When is issue advocacy political? Where is the line? Who defines it? And who benefits by “transparency”?

    If AARP puts out advertising or literature that advocates finding solutions for the uninsured or expanding Medicare programs, does the public have any real need or reason or benefit in knowing who contributes to AARP (members)?

    Would those ads be political?

    What if they said, call Congress and tell them you support AARP’s position? Is that political?

    What if they said, call Congressman Dingleschmidt? Is that political?

    Again, how does the public benefit from knowing who the donors are?

    These are dangerous lines - be very careful.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1312 hrs
    
    
    

44. Sorry, Keith.  Social contract, as you define it to contain everything, and to be the granter of rights to the people, is confined to statist societies.  Of course our fathers just had to use terms like “inalienable” when they discussed rights and phrased the constitution not to grant rights, but to grant powers to the government from preexisting rights.  How inconvenient for you.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1313 hrs
    
    
    

45. The Consitution does not differentiate between political speech and speech, and neither do I.  You can make a case from the writings of the founding fathers that political speech should get more protection, but never less, but that case is weaker than simply holding that all speech is protected.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1315 hrs
    
    
    

46. Suppose NAMBLA ran a commercial advocating their positions, most people would be opposed to those positions.  Would it change your mind if you knew who donated to them, probably not because you base your support or lack thereof on the ideas not the money.

    Posted by Benjamin on April 17, 2008 at 1321 hrs
    
    
    

47. Exactly.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1322 hrs
    
    
    

48. If they are taxpayer assets, I cannot transfer them from your family to mine.

    Whaaatt?? What do you call giving politicians campaign dollars so they pass laws to build roads to nowhere? If you are a roadbuilder, I call that transferring assets from me to you. I call it bribery. Hijacking!!!!

    Am I missing something with my math?

    Posted by Jack Lohman on April 17, 2008 at 1334 hrs
    
    
    

49. Correct me if I’m wrong pilot, but I believe you were a big fan of democracy over the elevation of the mediocrity Gabelman to the state supreme court.

    You’re quite wrong. I don’t believe I’ve ever discussed Gabelman or the supreme court race at all on this forum (or any)

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1337 hrs
    
    
    

50. If that is what you meant, you should have said you don’t want the government to take away your property and give it to me.  “Taxpayer property” could mean a bunch of things depending on who is saying it. 

    Anyway, you’re confusing a few things here.  The government is taking your stuff.  They are the ones doing the hijacking.  Quite right.  However, soem party advocating this policy by utilizng their own resources is just free speech.  The government is under no obligation to follow this course.  If you have evidence of bribery, you should bring it to the attention of the authorities.

    You problem seems to be big government.  Perhaps you join up with my libertarian brethren. 

    and of course, you should be against that policy of confiscation regardless of who is funding it, as has been stated 80 bazillion times by now.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1343 hrs
    
    
    

51. Benjamin, this is really going to shock you, but money buys votes. Check with WMC if you don’t believe me. That one side is outspending the other, matters. Or they wouldn’t do it. It doesn’t matter how many citizens vote, private money can buy enough votes to outweigh them. How’s that for democracy?

    So I get it, Paul. Your money should be able to drown out my money, especially if I don’t have as much as you. Very nice system we have here. I think I’m beginning to come around.

    And incidentally, nowhere did our founding fathers anticipate that the supreme court would label money as speech. Most of us know it as a possession, not something that would have been perceived as being able to buy votes.

    Posted by Jack Lohman on April 17, 2008 at 1351 hrs
    
    
    

52. Suppose NAMBLA ran a commercial that was completely fallacious and ruined a competent candidates campaign giving a narrow victory to a less qualified candidate.

    After the election it became known that the claims in the ad were false.  Wouldn’t you want the funders of the ad to be held accountable?

    The bad actors in elections are getting more and more bold.  They will continue to do so as long as they are anonymous.  The only way to weed them out is to shine a light on them.  If you don’t support transparancy you are tacitly supporting gutter politics.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1352 hrs
    
    
    

53. If you have evidence of bribery, you should bring it to the attention of the authorities.

    It has been brought to the attention of the authorities.  In case you haven’t noticed McCain and Obama both support campaign finance reform.  Could it be that they both came to the conclusion that this is what is best for the country?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1355 hrs
    
    
    

54. Do secret fat cat campaign donors have to show ID to play this game? Or does the money talk?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1400 hrs
    
    
    

55. Yes, 3rd Way, shining a light on bad actors makes sense, unless you are a bad actor and want to remain anonymous. That’s what we call “values.”

    Posted by Jack Lohman on April 17, 2008 at 1401 hrs
    
    
    

56. Jack if someone paid you to vote a certain way I want in on it, I could use some extra cash.

    Posted by Benjamin on April 17, 2008 at 1412 hrs
    
    
    

57. Money is just a proxy for barter.  You can convert it into anything you want.  Sometimes it’s bananas, sometimes it’s speech, or at least the implements of speech.  But hey, if you want to outlaw pens, papers, or printing presses, well, have fun with that argument. 

    None of you are thinking past stage one.  You think this policy will clean up politics?  It will do nothing of the source.  It won’t even help.  It will give more power to established lobbies while crowding out minorities.  If you like disenfranchising minorities, then support this policy.

    It will give incumbents, who have established fund raising networks and a higher chance of winning, another advantage. 

    What this comes down to is that there is speech that you guys don’t like.  The first amendment is quite clear about protecting speech that you guys don’t like.  Especially if there is someone, me for instance, who still wants the right to that speech. 

    You also show disdain for your fellow electorate.  You think that voters are just being fooled by anonymous donors?  You think that we can’t figure out that the road builders are in favor of building roads? 

    You’re not even subtle about your goals.  3rd way wants to punich people for their speech.  Nice.  And in doing so he makes clear why anonymity is so important.

    In his example, the problem with NAMBLA’s ad is it’s content.  The fact that it is NAMBLA does not matter if the content is lousy.  You guys want to tar and feather these people for who they are, not what they say, all the while using their speech as a proxy to get to them. 

    Lastly, money buys votes, however it’s value decreases very quickly past a certain level.  This makes up an entrie chapter of Freakonomics and is now common knowledge.  Most federal campaigns exceed the marginal return on advertising by leaps and bounds.  In short, in nearly every Federal race, both parties exceed the amount of spending that actually matters, meaning that their spending had no effect on the winner.  It buys votes, but if you buy enough it cancels out.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1414 hrs
    
    
    

58. Jack, who is a “bad actor?”

    How do you tell?

    Also, McCain and Obama support “campaign finance reform” because it helps them to win elections and is popular among morons, which happens to be their largest constituency.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1416 hrs
    
    
    

59. You know bad actors by the actions they take, Paul. And the referendum for campaingn finance reform passed by 90% of the votes in 2000. Wow, we must be in deep doo-doo, or have a much smarter constituency than you imagined.

    And Benjamin, I am not receiving dollars for my votes, the politicians are. Become a politician; it is very lucrative.

    Posted by Jack Lohman on April 17, 2008 at 1422 hrs
    
    
    

60. It will give more power to established lobbies while crowding out minorities.

    Paul, that is absolutely brilliant. It doesn’t even warrant a reply.

    Yeah, public funding will benefit incumbents, even beyond their current 95% re-election rate. You sure got that right.

    Actually, most of us dummies were under the impression that if public funding favored incumbents they’d have passed it years ago. Little did we know. Wow. I’m learning a lot today.

    Posted by Jack Lohman on April 17, 2008 at 1433 hrs
    
    
    

61. I don’t see how revealing an identity is punishment.  Is it too much to ask that someone stand behind their speech?  I would go so far as to call your integrity into question if you are willing to say things anonymously that you won’t state in your own name.

    In his example, the problem with NAMBLA’s ad is it’s content.  The fact that it is NAMBLA does not matter if the content is lousy.  You guys want to tar and feather these people for who they are, not what they say, all the while using their speech as a proxy to get to them. 

    That is bullshit.  I don’t care who is misrepresenting an issue or a candidate.  I don’t want anyone to do it.  Only the desperate or the anonymous go low enough to start misrepresenting positions.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1434 hrs
    
    
    

62. Tell me 3rdWay, do we not have slander and libel laws enough for you?  Or do you wish to punish speech that is not in fact slanderous or libelous?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1443 hrs
    
    
    

63. Well BVBigBro, it’s not the slander and libel that is killing the American economy. It’s the bribery and political corrup… sorry, I meant the free speech.

    Posted by Jack Lohman on April 17, 2008 at 1450 hrs
    
    
    

64. How is revealing an identity is punishment?

    You can misrepresent and mislead without slander or libel.

    Do you support misrepresenting or misleading advertising?

    Would you ever say things you know to be misleading and keep your identity hidden?

    If you anwered no to the last two questions I don’t know how you can support those that are willing to say yes.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1453 hrs
    
    
    

65. I’ll take their corruption over your statism any day of the week.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1453 hrs
    
    
    

66. I’ll take their corruption over your statism any day of the week.

    If you don’t think a corrupt system is going to lead to corporate fascism you are delusional.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1454 hrs
    
    
    

67. From what I can see, this conversation is not worth entering. So I won’t.

    Posted by elliot on April 17, 2008 at 1500 hrs
    
    
    

68. The point, 3rdWay, is that misleading and misrepresenting are entirely undefinable once you get past the requirements for slander and libel.    If you cannot demonstrate slander or libel, then “misrepresenting” and “misleading” are entirely in the eye of the beholder.

    This country was founded in the belief that we all have natural liberties that we are free to enjoy to any extent until we begin to infringe the natural rights of others.    Privacy, anonymity and speech are surely natural liberties and if they are not exercised to the extent of libel or slander I see no natural liberty of you or anyone else that is being infringed by someone else’s speech or anonymity.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1502 hrs
    
    
    

69. Our corrupt system already has lead to corporate fascism.  You guys are supporting the billionaires dream.  A system where they can control the media, the politics and the tax revenue stream.  The run the whole show because they bought the whole system.  We bitch about high gas prices so they divert our money from big oil to the corn lobby, we bitch about ethanol mandates and they are going to divert our money to GE and other conglomerates that can take advantage of alternative energy.  We can’t win, no matter what we do we are going to get milked and the money is going to be funnelled to a corporation that paid off a politician. 

    The only way we can take the politicians back from the highest bidder is to put an end to the corrupt auction that is campaign finance. 

    You guys complain that true conservatives can’t get elected.  You are right, a true conservatives wouldn’t sell himself to a corporate interest that wants to milk the tax payer.  People of integrity have a hard time winning against politicians that can be bought and sold.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1506 hrs
    
    
    

70. Nothing about this is new.  It has always been true.  Separation of powers slows it down.  Campaign finance reform will do nothing to stop it because the corrupt idiots are in charge of insituting it.  You will need an extragovernmental solution to this problem. 

    To the extent that it is a problem.  BTw, seeing all of these lefty types bitch about government spending is awesome.  Welcome to the club. 

    Also, putting some teeth into the Interstate Commerce Clause would do more than some stupid anti-free speech law.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1510 hrs
    
    
    

71. People of integrity have a hard time winning against politicians that can be bought and sold.

    Absolutely right on!

    Posted by Jack Lohman on April 17, 2008 at 1511 hrs
    
    
    

72. Welcome to the club???

    You are finally getting it? Do you not remember Tax-and-spend Tommy Thompson? He perfected the moneyed system we have today.

    Posted by Jack Lohman on April 17, 2008 at 1515 hrs
    
    
    

73. Yeah.  When I bitch to conservatives I’ll metion Tommy.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1520 hrs
    
    
    

74. It’s high time someone quoted Hugo Black’s Supreme Court decision on the subject:

    Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. The obnoxious press licensing law of England, which was also enforced on the Colonies was due in part to the knowledge that exposure of the names of printers, writers and distributors would lessen the circulation of literature critical of the government. The old seditious libel cases in England show the lengths to which government had to go to find out who was responsible for books that were obnoxious to the rulers.

    John Lilburne was whipped, pilloried and fined for refusing to answer questions designed to get evidence to convict him or someone else for the secret distribution of books in England. Two Puritan Ministers, John Penry and John Udal, were sentenced to death on charges that they were responsible for writing, printing or publishing books. n6

    Before the Revolutionary War colonial patriots frequently had to conceal their authorship or distribution of literature that easily could have brought down on them prosecutions by English-controlled courts. Along about that time the Letters of Junius were written and the identity of their author is unknown to this day. n7

    Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes.

    Here is the case:

    http://epic.org/free_speech/talley_v_california.html

    I believe it was unanimous.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1534 hrs
    
    
    

75. No 3rdWay, PaulNoonan has it entirely correct.  The problem is that government has become a vending machine to distribute treats.  For people to believe such a vending machine will not become corrupted over time is the billionaire’s dream.    The solution is not to take away people’s liberties, but to limit the power of the government to distribute cash.   

    Yesterday you complained that McCain would limit discretionary spending and not raise taxes.  Today you complain that government money is being misspent and would use that as your excuse to limit liberty.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1535 hrs
    
    
    

76. Yesterday I complained because McCain was misrepresenting himself and his ““spending cuts”.  Today I am complaining about people that want to influence elections by misrepresenting positions anonymously.  I am just against people peddling bullshit.

    Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth.

    Eventually technology will give us the liberty we all want.  Our free speech will always be with us on the internet.  I can say “fuck george bush” all day long and nobody can do a damn thing about it.

    I just hope that someday people are smart enough to see through the bullshit being broadcast and find the truth that guys like us search for in the blogosphere.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1551 hrs
    
    
    

77. Well then, let’s limit that discretionary spending and downsize the vending machine.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1601 hrs
    
    
    

78. Well then, let’s limit that discretionary spending and downsize the vending machine.

    This is where we go our seperate ways.  I agree that the government wastes way too much money.  But I also believe that our society is way screwed up.  Our government is partially at fault for that, but the problems are so massive that only the power of our collective effort (through government) can solve them. 

    Without good governance human society would still be hunting and gathereing.  I think our only way out of our current mess is with a competent government, unfortunately those don’t come cheap.  Especially when it is sold at auction.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1610 hrs
    
    
    

79. Funny how free speech begets free speech isn’t it? 

    As far as identity or occupation is concerned, Kevin said he was willing to put himself out there even though some of his clients were conservative so I inquired what line of work he was in because he didn’t seem to understand how politicians treat those who dare to disagree with them.

    I have never hidden the fact that I am a conservative political consultant, on the other hand, I don’t feel compelled to disclose what I do or whom I represent every time I express an opinion.  So long as the government keeps collecting my hard earned money, I will exercise my right to express my opinion. 

    I also consider myself fortunate to work on behalf of ideas and principles I believe in.  I realize that not everyone is so lucky and that is direclty on point. 

    We are talking about issue advocacy and the disclosure of members to a long and diverse list of organizations.  Why would someone not want their identity disclosed?  Perhaps you are a car dealer and you support Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin which is advocating against a ban on partial birth abortion.  Do you want to arrive at work one morning to find operation rescue blocking the entrance to your lot? 

    Once an organization that advocates issues and ideas is forced to disclose its donors, regardless of the timing or parameters surrounding the disclosure, it will be the beginning of the end of that organization, and that is the ultimate goal of people like Mike McCabe and Fred Kessler.  Public employee unions have captive memberships as does the State Bar, yet even WEAC and the AFL-CIO oppose these efforts.

    Kenosha County is about to Coronate State Representative Jim Kreuser as its new County Executive.  A few months ago, Minority Leader Kreuser publicly called for a boycott of Enterprise Rental Car because Enterprise had the unmitigated gall to oppose a 650% increase in the car rental tax to build a train. 

    Taking away the rights of ordinary citizens to band together to petition their government will result in the coronation of more King Kreusers and so will public financing. Why? Because government is the biggest special interest of all and it will use its power to protect its own.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1640 hrs
    
    
    

80. Anonymous speech can be viewed more cautiously by those hearing the message, but the speech should not be suppressed or regulated out of existence.

    Be wary of Government’s attempts to regulate those who comment on the activities of the Government.

    At what point do you differentiate between an anonymous blog with a lot of traffic and a piece of literature distributed through the mail that may or may not be read?

    Should we demand to know every anonymous blog commenter’s true identity, have them post a link to a pdf of their tax returns, too?

    Where do you draw the line when demanding full disclosure of the ‘people behind the message.’

    In 1958 the State of Alabama demanded the membership list of the NAACP in an attempt to intimidate their donors into silence, or to dry up their funding. The US Supreme Court ruled against such suppression of rights.

    If you don’t like the message or tone of certain candidates or groups, do not support them or their causes.

    Certainly, those reading this blog understand that this nation may never had been founded without the widespread distribution of anonymous complaints against the Crown.

    Free speech is among the fundamental rights enjoyed by Americans. Attempts to deny such rights should be vigorously opposed, regardless of whether Democrats or Republican propose the suppression.

    Posted by Fraley on April 17, 2008 at 1731 hrs
    
    
    

81. At what point do you differentiate between an anonymous blog with a lot of traffic and a piece of literature distributed through the mail that may or may not be read?

    An anonymous blogger will always be free and unregulated.  If you are not paying to have your voice broadcast you are untouchable.  When they come to silence free (no cost) speech I will fight to the death to maintain our rights.  The point is to make the average guys speech equal to speech that is only available to the highest bidder.  You can’t regulate a persons voice or a group of peoples voices put together on a street corner, but you can regulate a group of people that are paying to have their voice transmitted into the public domain (the airwaves and the mail system).

    I hope we someday reach the point where bloggers and youtube video makers are just as influential as special interest groups that can buy air time during American Idol.  Free (no cost) speech will always be free, really expensive speech should be subject to reasonable regulation.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1757 hrs
    
    
    

82. An anonymous blogger will always be free and unregulated.  If you are not paying to have your voice broadcast you are untouchable.

    But we do pay.  We pay for hosting fees, software licensing, etc.  If this blog was anonymous, are you saying that you’d be OK with silencing us?

    Posted by Owen on April 17, 2008 at 1842 hrs
    
    
    

83. Rights are natural, inalienable.  They do not come with any strings.

    Wrong.  They come with responsibilities.

    Posted by dad29 on April 17, 2008 at 1904 hrs
    
    
    

84. There should literally be no camaign laws.  You should be able to register to run for president in 5 minutes.  You should be able to say whatever you want, give anyone you want as much money as you want, and buy as much air time as people are willing to sell you

    That’s the intelligent alternative toPridemore’s “disclosure.”

    Won’t happen, either.

    Posted by dad29 on April 17, 2008 at 1908 hrs
    
    
    

85. If this blog was anonymous, are you saying that you’d be OK with silencing us?

    No, your hosting fees don’t amount to much when you compare them to a substantial ad campaign.  It is the transaction that is problematic, large sums of money for access to impressionable political speech.  There should be a middle ground on this.  Once you cross a reasonable threshold the regulation should take effect. 

    We are talking about the market place of ideas.  If you can corner the market with a superior product and no cost word of mouth advertising you should win.  The problem is the people that want to monopolize the market by flooding it with advertising competitors can’t match.  I see that as a problem, especially when the people flooding the market don’t have to identify themselves.  Transactions in every well functioning market are subject to reasonable regulation.  The transaction of speech for cash shouldn’t be any different.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 1953 hrs
    
    
    

86. Interesting.  How would you define these thresholds?  Let’s say we spend $100 on hosting fees and reach 50,000 readers a day?  Should we be regulated?  What if we spend the same amount, but reach 2,000,000 readers a day?  How about now?  Or, what if we spend $10,000 on hosting fees and only reach 1,000 people?  Is it time to regulate? 

    Whatever you do, it seems that your thresholds would have little objective criteria and merely be arbitrary boundaries to free speech.

    Posted by Owen on April 17, 2008 at 2008 hrs
    
    
    

87. To all you free speech advocates, I have just one question: We’ve had it since the 1970’s Buckley-Veleo decision, how are you liking it so far? How are you liking a state legislature and congress that is bought and sold to the highest bidder? Bribery and payola. Isn’t this kind of speech just great? Our economy has become totally trashed and deregulation has nearly sunk our banking and mortgage system. Jobs are no longer available in the states, except for right-wing pundits who are trying to justify why things went wrong.

    See http://tinyurl.com/2eerzo and then let’s talk about it some more.

    Posted by Jack Lohman on April 17, 2008 at 2019 hrs
    
    
    

88. Jack,

    Oh, and things were peachy during the 50s and 60s. No bribery, no payola no political machines no voter suppression?

    It’s amazing you can type, being perched atop the high horse and what not.

    I’d argue, as an example, that the electorate in the most recent Supreme Court race knew more about the judicial philosophies, previous court decisions and professional backgrounds of the two candidates than in any Wisc. court race in my lifetime.

    People can disagree with what information is relevant in the decision making process in any election, but how can you argue that less information is better?

    Posted by Fraley on April 17, 2008 at 2026 hrs
    
    
    

89. Rights are natural, inalienable.  They do not come with any strings.

    Wrong.  They come with responsibilities.

    Perhaps you could supply an example?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 2028 hrs
    
    
    

90. If you spend $10 and reach 10,000,000 people no regulation, If you spend $1,000,000 and reach 10 people you are regulated.  The regulation should be determined by the transaction of money for influence not by the amount of people you reach.  I would say the regulation threshold is crossed once $1,000 is spent.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 2040 hrs
    
    
    

91. Brian, I am absolutely amazed that you, as a republican insider with probably more stories of corruption than you’d like to discuss here, can turn a blind eye to it all. But I am slowly learning what “values” really means to the right.

    Posted by Jack Lohman on April 17, 2008 at 2043 hrs
    
    
    

92. That’s a nice move, Jack.

    Question the values of individuals who do not agree with you.

    It’s amazing that you haven’t won over more converts with such an effective charm offensive.

    Posted by Fraley on April 17, 2008 at 2053 hrs
    
    
    

93. “I’d argue, as an example, that the electorate in the most recent Supreme Court race knew more about the judicial philosophies, previous court decisions and professional backgrounds of the two candidates than in any Wisc. court race in my lifetime.”

    Nice try, Fraley.  The people haven’t figured out yet that you folks sold us an idiot.  Face it—Gableman will need people to lead him to and from the bathroom in the Capitol.

    If you folks were going to buy a court seat didn’t you have an obligation to the instutution to run someone with at least half a brain?  I shudder to think what happens when he has to write his first majority opinion.  He is going to need a lot of help.  Hopefully they will get him clerks from real law schools!

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 2107 hrs
    
    
    

94. That’s sharp, Brian. Ignore the issue totally. The right wing took over in 1994, deregulation abounded, Bush took over in 2000, converted the $300B surplus to a $600B deficit, put the oil companies in charge of energy, and yes, conservative “values” trashed the country. I repeat: How are you liking it so far?

    Posted by Jack Lohman on April 17, 2008 at 2110 hrs
    
    
    

95. Fraley said,

    Question the values of individuals who do not agree with you.

    Uh…don’t you do this nearly every day on your blog and routinely advise candidates to do the same?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 2116 hrs
    
    
    

96. Jack said,

    Brian, I am absolutely amazed that you, as a republican insider with probably more stories of corruption than you’d like to discuss here, can turn a blind eye to it all. But I am slowly learning what “values” really means to the right.

    To the partisan, it’s not corruption when practiced by the friendly side.

    As to your question whether we’re happy with what we have since Buckley v. Valeo, in Democracy we get the government we deserve. We are a slackjawed, lazy, decadent society. Hence a government that couldn’t pour piss out of a boot that is running a $9 trillion debt.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 2122 hrs
    
    
    

97. 3rd Way,

    If you spend $10 and reach 10,000,000 people no regulation, If you spend $1,000,000 and reach 10 people you are regulated.  The regulation should be determined by the transaction of money for influence not by the amount of people you reach.

    But that doesn’t square with what you said earlier:

    The problem is the people that want to monopolize the market by flooding it with advertising competitors can’t match.

    If the problem is someone monopolizing the market by flooding it with money, then if I spend $10,000 and only reach 10 people, how can you argue that I am monopolizing the market?

    Posted by Owen on April 17, 2008 at 2130 hrs
    
    
    

98. Whatever you do, it seems that your thresholds would have little objective criteria and merely be arbitrary boundaries

    You make a good point Owen but as with product liability claims, medical malpractice and judicial ethics we have to start somewhere.

    Let’s take the recent SC race.

    I have read various reports putting the amount spent by third party groups at somewhere between 85% & 95% of the total dollars spent.

    That would leave the actual amount spent by the candidates themselves between 5% & 15%.

    How about some ratio that ties the amount that can be spent by special interest groups to the amount spent by the candidates themselves.

    And make issue ads just that, no mentioning of candidates names but rather informing the public about what judicial activism or conservatism actually means, what is the actual job of the position being contested that sort of issue stuff.

    It is all about promoting an informed electorate, right?

    Leave the name calling, mudslinging and inuendo to the candidates themselves and let them pay for it.

    No more, I don’t like it either, but what can I do? “

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 2334 hrs
    
    
    

99. Rights are the actions decisions that we retain from the state of nature, from outside of society.

    The “state of nature” to which you refer is God.

    IIRC, God also wrote the Big 10.  THOSE are called “responsibilities.”

    There is a correspondence between them.  Otherwise, of course, your “rights” are over-ridden by MY “rights.”

    Libertarian jabberwocky.

    Posted by dad29 on April 18, 2008 at 0637 hrs
    
    
    

100. Thanks to all of this spending, we have had elections that demean the intellect and steer clear of the real issues like they were typhoid.

     The money is not helping us move ahead. Instead we get banal trivial crap like criminal cases in a supreme court race where the guys getting the job will have little to do with them and in other cases flag lapel pins or off-handed remarks.

     But what is funny is you guys will ride with this notion that money in a campaign is good, until the other side gets more. Then you’ll be all for reform.

     Case in point. Where was your bitching when Tommy was using the Vanna White veto. Then when Doyle had it, you were into light the torches, grab the pitch folks and let the peasant mobs to kill the Frankenstein veto.

     Stuff like this is why it is hard to take you people seriously, because there is no intellectual honesty.

     Let’s see post #100 prove my point.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2008 at 0642 hrs
     
     
     

101. It’s high time someone quoted Hugo Black’s Supreme Court decision

     That decision’s philosophy is consistent with Black’s general tendency to sever “rights” from “responsibilities.”

     CF:  Roe v. Wade.

     Black was wrong on Roe, and wrong here.  As I reminded someone, sedition against the King of England for purposes of revolution is NOT the same as a SCOWI race.

     Posted by dad29 on April 18, 2008 at 0647 hrs
     
     
     

102. XXP, there are 1000’s of examples of the connection between rights and responsibilities.

     You have a right to offer pilot services.  When you have a customer, you have the responsibility to pilot safely, no?

     That’s a demo of the same thesis voiced in the famous phrase about yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre.

     Sure, there’s a right to yell FIRE.  But there’s a corresponding responsibility.

     Your right to procreate also has corresponding responsibilities. 

     We can go on, and on…

     Posted by dad29 on April 18, 2008 at 0656 hrs
     
     
     

103. Yes, and politicians have the right to take campaign contributions and the responsibility to pass laws that are in the best interest of the public. Funny how that works.

     Or doesn’t. The value of the money always outweighs the responsibilities, and the public gets screwed over and over. Sounds to me like the theory is not working.,

     Posted by Jack Lohman on April 18, 2008 at 0709 hrs
     
     
     

104. No dad29 you can’t go on and on.  The fire example only works when you enter into someone else’s realm.    I am free to yell fire in my house all day long.

     Pilot services are not a natural right.

     The examples you will produce will involve either rights that are not natural, but are in fact societal conventions involving communal property or cases where two parties natural rights meet.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2008 at 0804 hrs
     
     
     

105. The fire example only works when you enter into someone else’s realm.

     Natural rights?

     I guess I am not sure what that means.

     Is it a right that you have from the moment of birth?

     Does it have to be exercised to be realized?

     Does it require any interaction with others?

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2008 at 0818 hrs
     
     
     

106. Natural rights are rights inherent to your mere existence.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2008 at 0823 hrs
     
     
     

107. We’re not talking about 3rd parties contributing to campaigns, we’re talking about 3rd parties contributing to the debate.

     You can argue just how much these ads (some good, some banal, yes, some outrageous) contribute to the debate, but that subjective decision should not be made by some official speech police bureaucracy.

     If the speech somehow goes to the length of libel or slander, there are avenues to deal with that. Otherwise, have faith in people’s ability to sift and winnow.

     Bloggers should be especially wary of the State’s appetite to control those who would criticize it.

     Posted by Fraley on April 18, 2008 at 0844 hrs
     
     
     

108. Daddio, the decision in question was unanimous.  Surely there is some member of the Warren Court that you would agree with generally. 

     And I’m sorry to hear that you think of the writings of John Locke as “libertarian Jabberwocky.”  You’ve probably spent too much time reading Chesterton.  Try picking up some enlightenment writings sometime.  You might learn something.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2008 at 0851 hrs
     
     
     

109. Natural rights are rights inherent to your mere existence.

     BBB, and those inherent rights would be?

     We’re not talking about 3rd parties contributing to campaigns, we’re talking about 3rd parties contributing to the debate.

     Brian, how about throwing out your take on the similarities and differences between “a campaign” and “the debate” as it would be relevant to an election?

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2008 at 0906 hrs
     
     
     

110. Natural rights are not enumerated, pjr.    There is no need to do so.

     I prefer David Hume, PaulNoonan.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2008 at 0915 hrs
     
     
     

111. Brian, to offer up that private money only buys speech rights for the giver—so they can contribute to the debate—is absolute hogwash. That such money/speech/debate does not thereafter obligate the winning politician to introduce or vote for issues and spending on behalf of the giver is just totally naïve (though disingenuous may be a more accurate term). You’re a GOP consultant. YOU know better!

     You and others also refuse to accept that public funding of campaigns is a very viable mitigator. People without money or wealthy backers can opt for public funds and be assured of matching funds when a right/left wing attack (sorry, debate) takes place. That actually INCREASES speech, but it does have the affect of leveling the playing field and those with money do not like level playing fields.

     It’s great that right now you are on the moneyed side but, as Keith mentioned before, one day you will not be and the advantage will go to your competitors.

     And that’s all fine and dandy, but in the meantime our corrupt political system is trashing our economy and the GOP is going down in flames.

     I guess you’ve not found a good answer to “How are you liking it now?” so I won’t hold my breath waiting.

     Posted by Jack Lohman on April 18, 2008 at 0922 hrs
     
     
     

112. Hume is my favorite, but Locke was more appropriate to Dadlsy’s comments, I felt.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2008 at 0936 hrs
     
     
     

113. Sure, there’s a right to yell FIRE.  But there’s a corresponding responsibility.

     Your right to procreate also has corresponding responsibilities.

     I don’t think rights come with responsibilities.

     Rights do have limitations.  But when you are ‘within’ your rights there are no other responsibilities.

     When you are outside of your rights…  well… yeah, then there are consequences but you aren’t within your rights.

     The right to free speech comes with no responsibility
     you can say nice things, mean things, true things, untrue things, hurt peoples feelings, blow sunshine up their ass, whatever (of course there is libel and slander) but those are limits of the right, not a ‘responsiblity’.

     I understand that this might seem like symantics, but i think its very important, and seeing how words and meanings have been twisted over the years i think its important to clarify.

     So I maintain that rights have limitations, but within your ‘rights’ there are no responsibilities.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2008 at 0940 hrs
     
     
     

114. About time to delete the check in the box re follow-up comments.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2008 at 1032 hrs
     
     
     

115. If we are talking about natural rights being those rights essential to your mere existence, looks like that would include a right to health care.

     What is the record for number of posts in a thread?

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2008 at 1406 hrs
     
     
     

116. Health care would be a positive right.  Someone would have to provide it for you, so it’s not a “Right.”  (At least not in the context that we were talking about above.)

     Rights consist of those freedoms we have outside of society which we retain in society. 

     The problem with making something like health care a right is that health care is scarce, and someone needs to produce for health care to exist.  Make it a right and you create slaves of those who must do the providing.

     Which is not to sy that universal health care might not be a good idea.  I wouldn’t support it but there are people I respsct who make a credible case for it.  However, rights do not exist by government fiat.  They exist outside of government decrees.

     That is why the Consitution creates a government of limited, enumerated powers, and why our rights are retained.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2008 at 1437 hrs
     
     
     

117. May I add, a government of, by and for the people could actually create those rights.

     I know that is the Gettysburg address, but the thought qualifies.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2008 at 1552 hrs
     
     
     

118. Ha, now Pridemore’s swinging at you AND at WRTL.  Delightful.

     What I like most is that Don wants to climb all over everyone for getting the contents of his bill wrong, but he won’t bother to actually include and details about what he IS doing in his release.  Are people supposed to call him every five minutes just in case he’s moved the target again?

     People in that district can defend Pridemore on ideological principle but there is zero doubt that Mickey Lehman was a far more respected and effective legislator.  Pridemore and his crazy-ass staff are just a laughingstock around the building - precisely for putting out nonsensical claptrap like this release.

     Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 18, 2008 at 1604 hrs
     
     
     

119. At the very least, Keith, a single payer health care system would be the best thing that could happen for state businesses, large and small. Call it a common good. But if you follow the mon… sorry, free speech that the insurance industry has sent to Madison you’ll see why it has not passed.

     Posted by Jack Lohman on April 18, 2008 at 1913 hrs
     
     
     

120. BBB and Paul,

     Are you sure you are not getting the Humes mixed up?

     Is it David or Britt?

     It has been 20+ years since I studied David Hume maybe I have forgotten something.

     As a Logical Positivist ( yea yea , I know you have to add with a sense of humor, Wittgenstein certainly did not have one) I am trying to get how a reference to David Hume justifies anything that is innate, inalienable or guaranteed by mere existence?

     What does not emanate from experience and perception?

     Please enlighten me while I do my homework.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2008 at 2013 hrs
     
     
     

121. We simply said we prefer Hume, who wrote on, well, everything.  As Paul noted Locke is the appropriate reference for this particular thread.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2008 at 2032 hrs
     
     
     

122. We simply said we prefer Hume, who wrote on, well, everything.  As Paul noted, Locke is the appropriate reference for this particular thread.

     We?

     Are you guys married?

     In your case BBB, Locke’s “tabula rasa” is incredibly appropriate, although I think that was supposed to be limited to the state of being at the time of birth.

     Noonan, are you down with this?

     What’s next, the announcement that you are a Cubs fan?

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2008 at 2333 hrs
     
     
     

123. Recess, I usually appreciate your insight, humor and comment.

     I think you were in Madison far too long if you do not understand Pridemore’s grassroots appeal and refreshingly straightforward approach to the usual BS that goes on within the confines of the Square.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2008 at 2345 hrs
     
     
     

124. The examples you will produce will involve either rights that are not natural, but are in fact societal conventions involving communal property or cases where two parties natural rights meet.

     XX, the over-arching statement here is that “no one has a “right” to do what is wrong.”

     So to clarify:

     1) one’s ‘rights’ are circumscribed by moral considerations;

     2) moral considerations include both the 10 Commandments and the moral mandate to treat all people as brothers (within practical limits.)  THIS, by the way, is the ‘morality’ which “cannot be legislated.”

     For you to pretend that “issues advocacy” has nothing to do with other people in the State is absurd.  All State issues—or issues of the common good, if you will—necessarily affect all members/citizens of the State to one degree or another.

     Therefore,  “rights” regarding the common good are circumscribed by moral responsibilities.

     Posted by dad29 on April 19, 2008 at 0908 hrs
     
     
     

125. Dad, “rights” in the Jefferson/Locke sense have very little, if anything, to do with the ten commandments or anything else in those books.

     Posted by JIJAWM on April 19, 2008 at 1219 hrs
     
     
     

126. You’re right Dad. The moral make-up of this country have a lot more to do with just than the constitution, though equating money with speech is a tenuous connection at best.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2008 at 1237 hrs
     
     
     

127. PJR, I do understand all of that which you’ve said about Pridemore.  But inside the building, he’s still a crappy legislator.  He doesn’t really get anything done and isn’t taken seriously by most of his colleagues.

     Pridemore might be more representative of where that district now is, but Mickey Lehman was a better legislator.  There’s no contradiction in that.

     Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 19, 2008 at 1351 hrs
     
     
     

128. No Cubs for me, PJR. My like of Hume comes from his philosophy of religion and Superstition (or, more appropriately, Of Superstition and Religion).  Anyway, BV and I got off into a sidebar about this a ways up.  Anyway, his skeptical bent is what is appealing to me.  Scotland cranked out a few good ones with Hume and Smith.

     Anyway, as I said, Locke was more pertinent to this comment thread, and is useful in getting past Dad29’s childish conception of “rights.” 

     “If it’s good, it’s a right.  Goo goo, ga ga.”

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 19, 2008 at 1436 hrs
     
     
     

129. “Childish”, Paul?

     Only babes-in-arms screech “mine, mine” louder than you.

     Posted by dad29 on April 20, 2008 at 0754 hrs
     
     
     

130. Paul, you ought to read this book, or at least its intro:
     http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/books_all_together_now

     Posted by Jack Lohman on April 20, 2008 at 1055 hrs
     
     
     

131. Yeah, he wrote this piece of garbage:

     http://www.amazon.com/Crunch-Squeezed-Unsolved-Economic-Mysteries/dp/1576754774/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s;=books&qid;=1208720949&sr;=8-1

     wherein he talks all about inflation without once mentioning monetary policy.  I don’t need to waste my time on his stuff when there are better things out there.  Right now I’m reading nudge by Thaler and Sunstein.  It’s excellent.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 20, 2008 at 1451 hrs
     
     
     

132. Yeah, I see your point. No sense worrying about the other guy.

     Posted by Jack Lohman on April 20, 2008 at 1459 hrs
     
     
     

133. The other guy, whoever that is, is best served through policies promoting robust growth.  I advocate such policies, and I am, therefore, a greater friend to the other guy than those who would, instead of utilizing their own resources, steal my money through the coercive power of government and give it to those who have not earned it. 

     You want to help the other guy?  Feel free to send me a check.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 20, 2008 at 1529 hrs
     
     
     

134. I’ll tell you what. Let’s both make a donation to the coalition for Wisconsin Health. This is an excellent volunteer group that does good things for people. Or is that not your style?

     Posted by Jack Lohman on April 20, 2008 at 1605 hrs
     
     
     

135. And you want robust growth? Bush and his right wing cronies transfered our budget surplus to the wealthy and it’s been down hill ever since. How are you liking it so far?

     Posted by Jack Lohman on April 20, 2008 at 1608 hrs
     
     
     

136. I’m sorry, did anyone here advocate a Bush-type system of anything?

     Posted by JIJAWME on April 20, 2008 at 1822 hrs
     
     
     

137. Yeah, I’m in favor of free markets, not Bush’s “Let’s Increase Spending A Bunch While Cutting Taxes A Ton” plan.

     I’m all for charity, by the way.  Charity is voluntary.  No problem there.  I donate a tad bit here and there myself.  I’d have to research the coalition for Wisconsin Health, but I would not be averse to such a thing.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 20, 2008 at 1953 hrs
     
     
     

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.