No To Suppression of Free Speech

I oppose this bill.

Freshman lawmakers in the state Assembly want to limit special interest issue ads. The nine newest Democratic lawmakers in the Assembly have introduced a bill that would restrict so-called issue ads that target candidates for statewide office.

State Representative Cory Mason (D-Racine), one of the sponsors, says the bill would prevent groups from airing political ads within 60 days of an election if they aren’t registered as a political group with the state. Mason says this would force groups to disclose who is funding their activities. Such groups currently avoid reporting requirements because their ads don’t endorse a specific candidate.

Look, I detest many of the ads too.  Some of them horribly distort the facts and border on lying.  But politics ain’t bean bag and the people have a right to speak their minds.

Remember that these groups are just a group of people with a viewpoint.  Greater Wisconsin Committee, Coalition for America’s Families, etc. are just an organized group of people who use their money to advocate for causes and candidates.  They have a right to engage in the political debate just like you and me. 

This is not a Left or Right issue.  It’s an issue that divides those who love freedom and those who want the government to curtail our freedom of speech. 

If this bill doesn’t disturb you, let’s take their logic a little further.  They are pushing for this law because:

State Representative Gordon Hintz (D-Oshkosh) says the often negative ads distort the facts and mislead voters. He says candidates can choose to ignore the ads, but the public may have a hard time distinguishing between serious political messages and attack ads. The Oshkosh Democrat says the ads have no place in Wisconsin’s political system.

Couldn’t the same thing be said of blogs?  The only difference is that blogs reach fewer people than TV and radio ads, but the premise is the same.  What about talk radio?  Should the government have to approve talk radio scripts 60 days before an election?  What about newspaper editorials and columns?  I would argue that many of Joel McNally’s columns are just as bad as some of those TV ads.  The only difference is that nobody actually takes Joel seriously. 

Like I said, the premise that the government should regulate free political expression within 60 days of an election because they don’t like the tone of that expression is offensive and oppressive.  I’m no fan of the Greater Wisconsin Committee, but I will not stand by while their liberty is stripped of them.  After all, it may be my liberty that the government comes after next. 

1. Well said Owen. Why do so many forget that the 1st Amendment, ALL OF IT, it essential to our Freedom. The rest seem to flow from this 1st, most important freedom.

   Posted by Billiam on March 29, 2007 at 0823 hrs




2. This is not a Left or Right issue.  It’s an issue that divides those who love freedom and those who want the government to curtail our freedom of speech.

   Then don’t make it one. And please refrain from making it an apple pie issue. It ain’t!

   Were those howling wolves I hear in the background?

   
   politics ain’t bean bag

   No but it should be about everyone getting an equal opportunity to be heard.

   I don’t believe the founding fathers considered the effect of cold hard cash on elections and on an individual’s ability to be heard over the din of ads that are churned out based on cash, not by the number of supporters or detractors.

   Funny how you omitted WMC from your list:smirk:

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 0828 hrs




3. It’s an interesting argument.  But tell me if you a) see a problem in the degree to which money is manipulating our political system and if so, b) what if anything can be done to mitigate it?

   Posted by scott on March 29, 2007 at 0829 hrs




4. I don’t believe the founding fathers considered the effect of cold hard cash on elections and on an individual’s ability to be heard over the din of ads that are churned out based on cash, not by the number of supporters or detractors.

   Really?  Do you really think that there weren’t pamphleteers who coarsened the political discourse and were able to drown out lesser voices because of their ability to get their message out?  Read a bit more history and come back to play.  The Founding Fathers got it right.

   Posted by Owen on March 29, 2007 at 0833 hrs




5. Scott,

   But tell me if you a) see a problem in the degree to which money is manipulating our political system and if so,

   Yes, but that has always been the case.  Efforts to “get the money out of politics” is a fool’s errand and is often used as a means for politicians to suppress the free speech of those who oppose them. 

   b) what if anything can be done to mitigate it?

   I see that you assumed that the answer to your first question is “yes.”   I think that the power of government should be reduced to mitigate it.  When government has little power, there is little reason to manipulate the system.  But that ship may have sailed…

   Posted by Owen on March 29, 2007 at 0843 hrs




6. Oh, and pjr:

   Funny how you omitted WMC from your list

   I included one Left and one Right group and intentionally used the Left group as my example to defend.  Get over it.

   Posted by Owen on March 29, 2007 at 0845 hrs




7. I actually agree with Owen here.  This is NOT a dem vs. pub issue.  All of our constitutional rights are important.  The first, the second, even the fourth, which has been threatened lately.  We are Americans before we are dems or pubs.  Never forget that.  A politician will always look out for his own interests and in the end doesn’t care that you are of his party.  protect your rights.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 0846 hrs




8. I also agree with Owen.  We do, however, need these groups to disclose their contributions.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 0908 hrs




9. Please explain to me how this limits anyone’s free speech?  It simply requires that if you are going to engaging in issue ads you have to disclose who you are if you want to do it within 60 days of an election.  What is your problem with this Owen?  You can say whatever you want, under this bill you just couldn’t do it anonymously.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 0939 hrs




10. Funny how lefties only selectively worry about the “chilling effect.”

    The truth is, and I think you know it, is that many of the people who fund these organizations would not do so without anonymity.  So forcing them to disclose the funding source would dry up funding and squelch that voice.

    Posted by Owen on March 29, 2007 at 1001 hrs




11. In general, I agree with you. But perhaps you could explain why political advertising shouldn’t have to follow the same “Truth in Advertising” rules that commercial ads have to?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 1017 hrs




12. Whoa, so we’re not just protecting speech, we’re protecting anonymous speech?  Where is that guaranteed in the constitution?

    Posted by scott on March 29, 2007 at 1021 hrs




13. Weren’t the Federalist Papers published under fake names?  Anonymous speech has a long and storied history in our political discourse.

    Posted by Owen on March 29, 2007 at 1024 hrs




14. I guess that is where we differ.  I think that if you want to use your influence to persuade people on who they should vote for, you should be able to stand by what you have to say.  The politicians you are talking about are held accountable at the end of the day, you should be held to the same standard.

    If you are going to put an ad on the air that claims candidate X is the wrong choice because of their record on education, but the real reason you don’t want candidate X elected is because of their record on corporate taxes, I should at least know who you are so I can balance your motivation with your claims.

    At the end of the day, I simply don’t equate money with freedom of speech as current case law does.  You have a right to free speech for sure, but the constitution doesn’t guarantee you access to a bull horn to make your voice heard above all others.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 1026 hrs




15. Isn’t that argument rendered fairly moot by modern technology?  For example, B&S reaches tens of thousands of readers, but it costs us very little to put up.  It’s not about the money.  It’s about the messages that resonate.

    Posted by Owen on March 29, 2007 at 1029 hrs




16. FYI - Owen.  I am in the deep minority of the other ‘lefties’ I hang around with on this issue.  You started off by trying to keep partisanship/ideological divides separate from the debate.  But you then characterized willingness to ignore the “chilling effect” as typical of lefties.  You were right the first time, there is a great deal of debate within the circles of the left and right and everywhere in between on this one.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 1031 hrs




17. One other item.  I agree with you on the power and importance of anonymous speech.  Hell, I’m posting anonymously on your blog for a reason.  However, in this instance we are talking about individuals and organizations banding together to influence public opinion with a tool that others don’t have access too.  The credibility of the message being broadcast or mailed into people homes requires a higher level of regulation imo.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 1035 hrs




18. It goes back to the truth in advertising argument made earlier.  I’m seeking out your blog, it is a concious decision on my part.  Mail that comes to my house, advertisements on my TV or Radio, all make the presumption that they have information I want.  Basically, if someone knocks on my door and tells me to vote for a candidate one of the first things I ask is who they are and who they represent.  I want the same info from broadcast media.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 1050 hrs




19. Money does not have to equal political speech.  It was, in my opinion, a poor decision to consider it such.

    It corrupts politicians, leading to pay-to-play legislation and and clouded priorities.  It affords television advertising that serves only to dumb-down issues and create confusion.  It destroys democracy by making the voice of the rich more powerful than the voice of the poor, and diminishes the value of their votes accordingly.

    I’m not eager to infringe on the 1st Amendment or any freedom of political expression, but a line has to be drawn.  Why do we call bribery political expression but not, say, arson.  Certainly burning down the headquarters of my favored candidate’s opponent is expressive.  It has a politicial element.  Why can’t we give arson a fancy name and call that all good as well?  Where do you draw the line?  Bribery?  Arson?  Murder?  All are certainly expressive conduct with a political motivation, but I personally think the negative effects of all of these things outweigh their need as political expression.

    It’s not like we have a shortage of alternatives for political expression in this country.  You want to fill your yard with signs and your car with bumper stickers?  Go wild.  You wanna attend a rally and scream your guts out?  Fine.  Walk the neighborhood knocking on doors and sharing your feelings about the election?  Feel free.  Giving large sums of money to a candidate in hopes that they will be elected and beholden to you specifically for that victory?  Sorry, no, that’s bribery and it should be a crime.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 1103 hrs




20. It’s not bribery Jason.  You give to candidates who support your positions.  Trying to change a politician’s position with cash will generally not work all that well.  If the politician is uncommitted on the issue, he will see money from both sides.

    Anyway, if you see too much money on one side of an issue, you can easily donate to the other side.  Problem solved, Toqueville style.

    Posted by PaulNoonan on March 29, 2007 at 1311 hrs




21. How does our stunning disparity of wealth in America factor into that equation, I wonder?

    Posted by scott on March 29, 2007 at 1318 hrs




22. Well, probably not that much.  Steve Levitt, in Freakonomics, has an entire chapter on the (quickly) diminishiing marginal returns on campaign spending. 

    Moreover, almost all campaign finance laws make it more difficult for the little guy to be heard.

    Also, I’m not “stunned” by wealth disparity.  A meaningless statistic, just like batting average and winning percentage in one-run games. I’ll never understand how the amount of money possessed by rich people could have anything to do with the amount possessed by poor people.

    Posted by PaulNoonan on March 29, 2007 at 1342 hrs




23. I am less concerned with the amount of money spent than the actual content of political ads.

    Right now, there are virtually no rules that require political ads to be truthful. If we are going to allow political campaigns to resemble the marketing of a commercial product, shouldn’t political advertising be required to maintain the same standards of veracity?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 1352 hrs




24. I just read Freakonomics!

    I’m kind of disappointed some of his stats were found to be wrong.  I’m looking forward to the new edition to see what he ended up changing.  I thought the book was enjoyable otherwise.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 1354 hrs




25. DJ, you are incorrect.  If a political ad is not truthful it could be found libelous, especially if it was produced with the knowledge that it was false.

    A special law to deal with the “truthiness” of political ads would suffer from the problem of having government decide what is truthful and what is not.  The 1st Amendment is designed to stop such practices.

    Posted by PaulNoonan on March 29, 2007 at 1358 hrs




26. Actually, Paul, that’s not true

    <href=“http://www.factcheck.org/SpecialReports18 8.htmlnewsid=65&newstype=1”>Are you making stuff up?</a>

    Courts are very hesitant to hear libel cases in these situations because politicians are public figures. Also, to win a case, you must prove that a person knowingly lied. In most political ads, it would be easy to claim that the lie was a mistake, not an intentional lie.

    Contrast this with commercial ads where advertisers must be able to prove that their claims are true, rather than just prove that they aren’t intentionally lying

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 1458 hrs




27. I’m sorry, I should have explained myself better.  You don’t seem to understand.  If a politician or an independent expenditure group knowingly tells a lie, the person or entity being lied about can sure them for libel.  You dispute this?

    In commercial advertising the speech is not what is punished.  It is the fact that the product fails to live up to the promises made during advertising that is punished.  It is based more in contract law than in 1st amendment law.  While there is some crossover, to be sure, that is the difference.  Commercial claims also tend to be objectively verifiable. 

    Political ads, by their nature, are clothed in opinion, and in most political ads claims of objective fact are generally supported by a citation on the ad itself just to avoid libel suits.

    You do know that what you advocate may put an end to political chicanery (although it probably would not) it would also end up suppressing a great deal of truthful political speech that the government does not approve of.

    Posted by PaulNoonan on March 29, 2007 at 1550 hrs




28. I think this issue is at the heart of the wealth disparity in America Paul.  People with money are able to influence politics in a way that people without money cannot.  A large number of people who contribute to political campaigns are doing so in the hope of achieving some financial reward (lower taxes, subsidization of a particular industry, special treatment) and in doing so are further solidifying their wealth. 

    Is it at the expense of those who cannot “speak” with dollars?  Of course, there’s only so much money to go around.  The rich get richer via favorable government treatment, the poor get nuthin, and the country keeps sinking deeper.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 1551 hrs




29. Treating bought and paid for political speech like commercial speech might be a step in the right direction.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 1556 hrs




30. many times courts will refuse to hear libel cases about politicians because they are public figures and due to 1st amendment concerns.

    For example, in 2004, the RNC claimed that according to the National Journal, John Kerry was the most liberal person to ever run for president. This was untrue.

    Do you think that he would’ve been anble to win a libel case against the RNC in that situation?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 1619 hrs




31. Yes, this is what I’m talking about.  It worries me a great deal that people with money are influencing the political process to a far greater degree than their alloted number of votes would otherwise allow.  I’m sensitive to the dangers of limiting speech, but surely we don’t have to just live with this situation for the sake of it.  Surely there is some compromise position whereby the impact on freedom is minimized and at the same time democracy is spread more evenly than it is today. Half of America doesn’t vote because they (at least somewhat correctly) deem that the process is in someone else’s pocket.

    Posted by scott on March 29, 2007 at 1637 hrs




32. Jason, the rich always have more resources than the poor.  Most campaign fincance laws and laws designed to “balance” speech prevent the poor from using their collective wealth. 

    Saying that the rich have more is true, but stating that it is a problem doesn’t follow.  Expecially when you advocate giving the government more power to “balance” out the speech.  Who do you think will be doing the balancing?

    I think that there are too many limits on commercial speech as it is, but political ads already are treated like commercial speech.  If the politicians product fails he is voted out of office. 

    Dj, to the extent that add relies on fact, it’s debatably true, and that is all that it takes.  As for the rest, calling Kerry the most liberal ever is a matter of opinion, and opinion is never actionable.  You seem to be grasping for ways to quiet those who you disagree with.

    Posted by PaulNoonan on March 29, 2007 at 1646 hrs




33. There are at least two major ways in which the wealthy unduly influence politics.  First, because of the fact that we don’t mandate free airtime or public financing of campaigns, candidates have to pass the money test before anyone else even gets to hear their name.  It’s the election before the election.  One can assume that a candidate who did not sit well with monied interests would be ruled out at step zero.  Second, we allow these same interests to pour millions into advertising geared to manipulate public opinion on a scale that our founding fathers can’t have dreamed of.

    I don’t know what remedies might be appropriately taken, but know there’s a problem as sure as there’s a nose on my face.  I don’t need a book author or a constitutional scholar to weigh in on that part.

    Posted by scott on March 29, 2007 at 1654 hrs




34. Scott, that’s a pretty big leap.  I think most people who don’t vote see it as pointless, which from a pragmatic stance is almost always correct.  Laziness, lack of awareness, whatever.  But not that the system is rigged.  In fact, I would think that if you felt the system rigged against you (this would be a good time to remind people that I live in the city of Chicago) that you would be more motivated to vote, not less so.  Your conclusion does not follow.

    I’d point you to Freakonomics again.  There is an upper limit to the amount of influence that money can have on a given election. 

    Moreover, it’s not dangerous because the number of outlets to spread counter-speech gets bigger and cheaper year.  As the marginal value of money stays relatively constant, the comparative value of the internet will further dilute the riches power.

    Your strategy will give the rich more power.  I guarantee it.

    Posted by PaulNoonan on March 29, 2007 at 1702 hrs




35. I don’t have a strategy.  And despite your reassurances it is my perception that the problem has gotten worse, not better, in recent years.

    Posted by scott on March 29, 2007 at 1708 hrs




36. I don’t know what remedies might be appropriately taken, but know there’s a problem as sure as there’s a nose on my face.  I don’t need a book author or a constitutional scholar to weigh in on that part.

    And despite your reassurances it is my perception that the problem has gotten worse, not better, in recent years.

    I prefer actual evidence, experts, Constitutional scholars, etc., to “gut feeling” myself, but if you want to go on “faith based” campaign finance reform that’s your perogative. 

    What evidence do you have that the problem has gotten worse.  William Randolph Hearst started a war for god’s sake.  He could never do so today.  The rich clearly are at an all-time low when it comes to power, and I suspect it has never been close.  Millions of dollars just doesn’t mean what it used to, because so many people have the ability to throw millions of dollars around, and many others can fight back in other ways, like the good ol’ internets. 

    The only force that still seeks to concentrate power and influence is the incumbent lobby.  You want to allow them to decide what’s fair?  How much people can spend?  No incumbent will ever lose again.  McCain-Feingold did enough damage.  Stop trying to make the problem worse by giving the problem more power.

    Posted by PaulNoonan on March 29, 2007 at 1728 hrs




37. the rich clearly are at an all-time low when it comes to power
    roflao

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 1752 hrs




38. Seriously, though.  When the internets have the level of penetration that broadcast television and radio have, you might be right.

    For the time being, however, television and radio advertising are still the main sources of political advertising consumers.

    Buying ads on television and radio costs lots of money.

    Ads on television and radio are persuasive. They do convince more people to vote for certain candidates/proposals

    Therefore, individuals and groups that are “rich” have an advantage in convincing more people to vote for certain candidates/proposals because they are able to afford to purchase more advertising.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 1759 hrs




39. There used to be rich white landowners.  Then there were robber barons controlling the few newspapers in the few cities.  That was all that people had.  Then there were more papers, which diluted their power.  Then radio diluted the power of the press further.  Then the number of radio stations expanded and their individual power was diluted, and paper was diluted further.

    Then TV was invented which diluted the influence of radio and print even more.  Then FOX (not FoxNews, I hate them too.) diluted NBC, CBS, and ABC.  Then Cable diluted all of them even more.  CNN, MSNBC, etc.  Then sattelite, the internet, blogs, podcasting, youtube, etc, blunted print, radio, the big 4, cable, etc. even more. 

    Your comment clearly lacks historical perspective.  Newspapermen in the early 1900s were far more powerful politically than Rupert Murdoch is today.  It’s just a fact.

    Posted by PaulNoonan on March 29, 2007 at 1812 hrs




40. Paul, your position seems to be that there is absolutely nothing’s wrong, and that even if there were, doing anything about it would invariably be counterproductive.  The former I just flat-out don’t believe, and the second I am merely skeptical about.

    I wonder - dare I suggest it? - what we might learn from other democratic nations of the world.  How are they handling these situation?

    Posted by scott on March 29, 2007 at 1812 hrs




41. I’m not talking about how powerful media moguls are or how influential certain media outlets are - I’m talking about how powerful and influential wealthy interests are through the media.

    Posted by scott on March 29, 2007 at 1819 hrs




42. I don’t think anything is wrong.  I like robust, diverse speech.  The rhetoric isn’t even as bad as it was 200 years ago.  Doing anything, at least through government, would be counterproductive.  You are asking politicians to neuter themselves.  What do you think they will actually do?  You really think that limiting the speech of rich people would be anything other than the greatest incumbent protection act of all time? 

    Why not start with putting an end to gerrymandering.  There is no reason that a computer cannot draw geometrically sound districts.  But this would also be asking politicians to neuter themselves.  What you are proposing is very similar to letting politicians draw their own districts.  That’s worked smashingly well, wouldn’t you agree?

    Posted by PaulNoonan on March 29, 2007 at 1819 hrs




43. Newspapermen in the early 1900s were far more powerful politically than Rupert Murdoch is today.  It’s just a fact.

    I agree with quite a bit of what you say. However, your analysis on this point is lacking a few details.

    Today, with the partial exception of the internet, all of the various media outlets IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY are controlled by a handful of companies. Additionally, their interests are so closely aligned that they could logically be considered a single entity. From the national news to your local affiliate, from WaPo and USA today to your local newspaper.

    Charles Foster Kane would be proud.

    I think that the big difference between us is that you don’t seem to think that the interests of the wealthiest 5% do not conflict with the interests of the rest of us.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 2052 hrs




44. More to the point of the “dilution” of the influence of the media outlets- I think that having a multitude of outlets not obviously controlled by the same company would actually have MORE influence than a single media outlet with a monopoly.

    People would be hearing the same message from radio, network tv, their local affiliate, cable news, their local paper and a national newspaper. Any alternative voices would be drowned out by reports from, for example, the Westwood one radio network a.k.a. WMAQ 5 Chicago tv, a.k.a. NBC news, a.k.a. CNBC a.k.a. MSNBC a.k.a. The History Channel a.k.a. Telemundo.

    Thats not to mention newspaper consolidation and book publishing ownership as well.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 2108 hrs




45. No but it should be about everyone getting an equal opportunity to be heard.

    Everybody DOES have an equal opportunity. Now granted it may not be a 50/50 split, but with all the cable news networks, talk radio, the internet, blogs, newspapers, magazines, bill boards, etc…
    You CANNOT possibly convince me, that NOBODYS’ getting an equal chance to be heard.

    People are just upset that NOBODY is LISTENING to their message, and that is why they are upset!

    Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on March 29, 2007 at 2250 hrs




46. The people and organizations with the most money get heard the most, have the most opportunity to sway public opinion, and are the best represented in Washington.

    Posted by scott on March 29, 2007 at 2259 hrs




47. You CANNOT possibly convince me, that NOBODYS’ getting an equal chance to be heard.

    Michael, it’s about EVERYBODY having an EQUAL voice

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 0741 hrs




48. But see that fact is pjr, everybody does have an equal voice.

    Its’ just that some equal voices are louder than others.

    Two inescapable conclusions in politics…(at least in my mind)

    1. The SQUEAKY wheel always gets the grease, -nobody wants to listen to a whiner, so the best way to shut them up, is to just give in. (This is true on both sides BTW)

    2. I don’t care how hard you try, you will NEVER EVER, NO MATTER HOW MANY LAWS you write, TAKE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS the only way taking money out of politics is to OUTRIGHT ban, any and all contributions.

    And by doing that, all you are doing is ensuring that only the richest people, are in government, and believe me NO ONE wants to see that happen.

    The only thing Masons proposal is doing is pushing the problem down the line, while creating other issues that will no doubt need to be addressed later.

    Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on March 30, 2007 at 0804 hrs




49. MIchael, the issue isn’t between having money in politics versus not having money in politics.  It’s whether our public policy exacerbates the pernicious influence of money in politics or mitigates it to some degree.  Right now it’s clear that our policies are doing little if anything to alleviate the problem.

    I ask again if anyone is familiar with the kids of policies other democratic nations have.  Do they have viable public financing available for campaigns?  Do they require media companies to provide airtime for candidates?  Does anyone know anything about this?

    Posted by scott on March 30, 2007 at 0812 hrs




50. Owen,

    I just thought WMC would be a more appropriate example because of the 1.5 million bucks they are spending on Ziegler.

    Just trying to keep it current so we can see how this money actually tries to influence campaigns

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 0836 hrs




51. Coalition for America’s Families is also running pro-Ziegler ads.

    Posted by Owen on March 30, 2007 at 0855 hrs




52. All I could find on their website was an endorsement of Ziegler when linked to Right to Life. Did I miss something?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 0945 hrs




53. Re: anonomous speech-  Those who would limit public speech are treating voters as though we are idiots.  If a message is sent anonomously, I give it less credibility.  If someone publicly stands by their message, I’ll give it more.  And, as in the days of our founding fathers, some political commentators may be fearful of retaliation by those in power.  Anonomous political speech is vital to true free speech.  Lastly, each vote counts equally.  Spending money on political ads does not equate to “buying” votes.  Again, you are treating voters as idiots who can’t discern.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 1007 hrs




54. I agree with most of what you said, however Spending money on political ads does not equate to “buying” votes.  Again, you are treating voters as idiots who can’t discern.
    is not an accurate statement. To believe that your statement is true is to believe that advertising has no persuasive power. Perhaps if everyone were perfectly rational, that would be true. However, the vast majority of people are susceptable to the far more powerful emotional messages with their subconscious connotations. That is why advertising works so well.

    And since the wealthy are able to afford more of it, they are able to persuade more people to vote their way

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 1036 hrs




55. Those who would limit public speech are treating voters as though we are idiots. If a message is sent anonomously, I give it less credibility.

    You underestimate the power of advertising in your hurry to congratulate yourself.  Even if something is anonymous, or from an obviously biased source, some people’s opinions will be swayed by it - even those who think of themselves as independent and critical thinkers.  Their thought process is subtly shaped by it, nonetheless.

    Posted by scott on March 30, 2007 at 1133 hrs




56. Well, it’s still ultimately the voters choice.  If they are swayed by a bogus ad, it’s their own fault, not the candidate’s.  If voters are as maliable as you suggest (and they are) then how are we ever to know what their actual viewpoints on things are?  There will always be outside influence.  If it’s not TV, the naive voter will still be influenced by something.  Who’s to say that something is better than high-priced media?

    The fact of the matter is that this kind of garbage in unconsitutional.  If you want to do it, you should first be advocating amending the consitution to repeal of the 1st Amendment.  And Scott, lots of other countries don’t have free speech.  Is a policy point that you think other countries do better than we do?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 1152 hrs




57. Well, it’s still ultimately the voters choice.  If they are swayed by a bogus ad, it’s their own fault, not the candidate’s.

    Based on that statement, we should also eliminate Truth In Advertising laws.

    I don’t think that the 1st amendment right to free speech is absolute. I don’t think that it’s too much to require that any organization that has the means to purchase advertising on the PUBLIC’S AIRWAVES be required to convey information that, at the very least, can’t be shown to be untruthful.

    If a group is being allowed to purchase time on our airwaves, they should be prohibited from defrauding us.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 1258 hrs




58. Who gets to decide what’s true and what’s false?  Will a government panel do it?  Will it be made up of people or robots, because I hear that people are easily swayed by advertising, and if they’re on some panel to decide truthiness they may be swayed by outside forces to make the wrong decision.

    Perhaps we can have a separate government panel to oversee their work as well.

    Posted by PaulNoonan on March 30, 2007 at 1341 hrs




59. It’s too bad the rest of the voters aren’t as smart as we are.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 1353 hrs




60. “they may be swayed by outside forces to make the wrong decision”

    Well, lets just abandon the whole justice system, then.

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

    Obviously, if something is blatantly false, then it would be easy to disprove. If something is merely very misleading, it would be harder to prove false. If something is only slightly misleading, it may not be possible to prove false.

    “Who gets to decide what’s true and what’s false?”

    Obviously, a party that believes that they have been harmed by false advertising would have to present evidence that refutes the falsehood.  If they are able to convince a panel, judge, jury, whatever, then there would be some negative consequences for the group/individual that spread the falsehood. The threat of this kind of action would have a chilling effect on untrue speech, it’s true, and it obviously wouldn’t be perfect (what is?), but at least it would serve to elevate our political discourse and reduce the number of elections decided by “dirty tricks”, like when push polls and a letter from Bob Jones University Professor Richard Hand misinformed voters that John McCain had fathered an illegitimate brown skinned child (he actually adopted her). This took a great deal of momentum away from McCain and probably cost him the nomination in 2000.

    If there had been strong penalties in place, perhaps that wouldn’t have happened.

    Why are you against working to insure that candidates and groups cannot lie in political ads? It has worked pretty well in commercial ads.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 1422 hrs




61. djheru, that’s agreat idea!  The party that believes they have been harmed by false advertising could file a lawsuit against the alleged offending party.  We could call the action “slander” or “libel” maybe?  It’s a shame we don’t have such actions today…..

    If you really think this is that big of a deal, why are you in favor of passing laws that are clearly unconsitutional instead of going through the proper channels to amend the consitution to repeal the first amendment?  If you don’t think political speech should be protected, just say so.  Say that you think the framers were wrong and that we should not have a right to free speech.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 1444 hrs




62. Hey smart guy- As I stated above, courts are very reluctant to hear libel cases regarding politicians because they are public figures and due to 1st amendment concerns.

    As I also stated above, I don’t think that the 1st amendment is absolute. You cannot shout “fire” in a crowded theatre. You cant claim that your phone psychics are really psychic, and you can’t claim that enzyte makes your dick bigger, so why is it that Richard Hand can claim that John McCain has an illegitimate brown-skinned daughter and the RNC can claim that John Kerry was the most liberal person ever to run for president?

    I’m not saying that political speech shouldn’t be protected, I’m saying that demonstrably false speech shouldn’t be protected.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 1514 hrs




63. Hey djheru that is a great idea.

    There are such things as facts, and a can of legal whoop-ass on these people would set a cost for dirty tricks. As far as what constitutes libelous, that’s for the courts to decide like they do with libel all the time.

    What drives me nuts is when the Journal runs a letter to the editor or an op-ed with info that is just plain wrong, like that screaming bar room rant that ran this week on crime in Milwaukee.

    As far as limiting political donations I take literally the idea that speech should be free and not something we have to pay for.

    And if they have bought commercial messages in which the message is false, that is willful.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 1541 hrs




64. Wouldn’t speech be even “freer” if we were to have public financing of campaigns?  Anyone who could get X signatures in X geographical areas can get X amount of free airtime on television and radio.

    Wouldn’t that take away some of the necessity for candidates to be in the pockets of wealthy interests all the time?  Might that not increase their responsiveness to their constituents?

    Posted by scott on March 30, 2007 at 1546 hrs




65. So DJ, you want something more like British libel law, where the burden is on the accused to prove veracity, not on the accuser to prove falsity? 

    The First Amendment would have to be amended to allow for such a system.

    Posted by PaulNoonan on March 30, 2007 at 1546 hrs




66. What do you mean courts are reluctant to hear slander and libel cases regarding poiticians?  Trial courts?  Is the court just not going to hear the case?  That doesn’t make any sense.  If it’s filed in the proper court and it states a claim on which relief can be granted, the court has to hear it.

    I think you can claim that your phone psychics are really psychic.  If you’re talking about the Miss Cleo case, her lie was that the call was free when it wasn’t.  John McCain should have had a strong case against Hand.  Did he file one?  Whether John Kerry is the most liberal person to ever run for president is a subjective question.  The proper respose would be to combat this kind of speech with more speech.

    Also, I think Oliver Wendal Holmes was dead wrong with his “shouting fire in a crowded theater” example.  For one thing, the issue in the Schenk case was weather a law that made it illegal to distribute pamphlets opposing the WWI draft was consitutional.  The Court held that it constituted a “clear and present danger” and was therefore an acceptable abridgment of free speech.  Would you agree with Holmes on that?

    Neither did the Supreme Court when they overruled Scchenk in Brandenburg v. Ohio.  Now the test is that speech can only be banned when it is directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action  (e.g. a riot).

    I’d argue that even the Brandenburg standard goes to far.  Rioting should be illegal.  Saying something that will cause a riot shouldn’t be.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 1556 hrs




67. Dang, JIJAWM.  I’ve never found myself in more agreement with you.

    Posted by Owen on March 30, 2007 at 1603 hrs




68. Wouldn’t speech be even “freer” if we were to have public financing of campaigns?

    No.  Public financing leads to rationing, gives incumbents the power to decide their opponents, and would take money away from those who really mean to speak and give it to those who were not willing to fork over their own money.  That is not what “free” means.  Let’s see, stealing, stealing again (air time), compelled speech (on TV).  All sorts of bad stuff.

    Anyone who could get X signatures in X geographical areas can get X amount of free airtime on television and radio.

    On what station?  Would their be a limit on the number of people?  How would they get the word out about the signatures?  Could they use private funds to advertise the fact that they are getting signatures?  What time do they get to be on TV and for how long?  Would independent groups still be allowed to pay for ads?

    Wouldn’t that take away some of the necessity for candidates to be in the pockets of wealthy interests all the time?

    You still have to fund on-the-ground operations, signature drives, appearances, etc.  That costs money.  So no.

    Might that not increase their responsiveness to their constituents?

    How will they know what their constituents want if their constituents don’t know who they are?

    Posted by PaulNoonan on March 30, 2007 at 1606 hrs




69. Public financing leads to rationing, gives incumbents the power to decide their opponents, and would take money away from those who really mean to speak and give it to those who were not willing to fork over their own money.

    Walk through that for me, please.  How exactly does that follow?

    Let’s see, stealing, stealing again (air time), compelled speech (on TV).  All sorts of bad stuff.

    The way I see it, we already sell licenses to broadcasters and we already make (modest) demands on them such that their signals serve the public interest.  Is it really that radical to suggest that they be required to give free airtime to candidates as a condition of their licensing?  If there’s any “stealing” going on, it’s the fact that these companies get to use the publics airways at such low cost.

    On what station?

    All of them.

    Would their be a limit on the number of people?

    Nope.  Anyone who could show viability with X signatures, etc., would be good to go.

    How would they get the word out about the signatures?

    Door to door.  With volunteers.  It’s done all the time.

    Could they use private funds to advertise the fact that they are getting signatures?

    Sure.  Disclosure and contribution caps would still apply, but sure.  Why not?

    What time do they get to be on TV and for how long?

    Prime time.  Ten minutes a week.  I don’t know.  The better question is why do you seem to think this is an insurmountable decision?

    Would independent groups still be allowed to pay for ads?

    Subject to the same laws they operate under now, yes.

    You still have to fund on-the-ground operations, signature drives, appearances, etc.  That costs money.  So no.

    I’m saying that television and radio spots are a significant amount of any state or national campaign budget.  What I’m proposing would immediately abdicate the need for a huge amount of money and the associated fundraising (and influence peddling).

    How will they know what their constituents want if their constituents don’t know who they are?

    How will they not know?  The candidates - even those who don’t spend half their time getting chummy with millionaires - will be on TV every night.

    Posted by scott on March 30, 2007 at 1626 hrs




70. Scott,

    So basically, you’re in favor of determining exactly how campaigns should be run instead of letting people freely decide for themselves?

    Posted by Owen on March 30, 2007 at 1640 hrs




71. Scott,
    Don’t you see what you’re advocating?  All of Paul’s questions are questions that someone has to decide the answer to.  Maybe you can come up with answers, but why do you get to be the guy to do it?  Or more accurately, under what power can congress decide these things in spite of the first amendment? 

    Even if we look at it purely as a matter of policy, all you are advocating is adding more and more layers of people making my decisions for me.  More people that can be corrupted.  If government get to decide how much speech I can use, on what do they base that determination?  Can I advocate for more speech?  How much speech can I use when I’m advocating for more speech in supporting a candidate?  Who gets to decide how much speech I can use in advocating for more speech in supporting a candidate?  Can I use speech to influence the people that decide how much speech I can use in advocating for more speech in support of a condidate?  And so on…

    Owen,
    I think we agree on lots of things.  I find myself opposing you and scott about the same amount of time.  Therefore, I find myself agreeing with you about equal time too.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 1642 hrs




72. I’m a little lost.  Did I say anything about who couldn’t do something?  Where am I limiting someone’s ability to spend their money on campaigns?  Or on TV?  Or on anything?

    A far as decision-making, most of those decisions are already in place!  Do we or do we not have elections in which signatures must be acquired to be on the ballot?  Who makes that decision?  Did the world come to an end?  Do we or do we not have requirements of broadcast stations that they carry PSAs and emergency signals?  Who makes that decision?  Did freedom die? 

    I don’t see a terrible threat in requiring broadcasters to carry the message of people running for office as a public service.  If you feel bad for them we could subsidize their time.  Half, maybe. 

    If a candidate wants to spend privately raised money, go for it. 

    Where’s the fire?

    Posted by scott on March 30, 2007 at 1649 hrs




73. But Scott, if a candidate can still spend privately raised money, then wouldn’t the people who can raise more money still be able to saturate the market more than those relying solely on the taxpayers’ money?  What have you solved?

    Posted by Owen on March 30, 2007 at 1700 hrs




74. Now I’m confused.  So you want more money in politics Scott?  More TV ads?  Is it your position that candidates and supporters can use as much speech (note money = speech) as they want with respect to election campaigns, and they should all get additional air time etc. provided by the tax-payers?  I’m just trying to be clear.

    We do have elections in which signatures are required to get a name on the ballot, but a person does not need to be on the ballot to win the election!  That decisions is made only for the sake of conveniance, and frankly, I’m against that too.  We do have requirements that broadcast stations carry PSAs and emergency stuff, but that doesn’t mean we should.  I do not believe that we must cure all evils of the same genus or none at all.  Does freedom die whith stuff like this?  Freedome is not an all-or-nothing kind of things.  All of those examples limit freedom even if they don’t kill it.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 1702 hrs




75. Not solved, improved.  At least candidates who might be antithetical to wealthy interests will still be viable and able to get a message out. 

    You are fond of saying you want “more speech.”  I give you more speech, and potentially voices that are currently not being heard.  Go me.

    Posted by scott on March 30, 2007 at 1704 hrs




76. You are fond of saying you want “more speech.” I give you more speech, and potentially voices that are currently not being heard.  Go me.

    But what you are advocating is forcing people to pay for speech that they don’t support.  How is that adding to our liberty?

    Posted by Owen on March 30, 2007 at 1709 hrs




77. Because it’s fostering a diversity of ideas in our political system, and mitigating the degree to which the powerful get to decide the topics.  That’s how.

    Posted by scott on March 30, 2007 at 1712 hrs




78. “The proper respose would be to combat this kind of speech with more speech. “ that is exactly the problem. When there is such a disparity in the ability to purchase access, the wronged party may not be able to afford “more speech”.

    No.  Public financing leads to rationing, gives incumbents the power to decide their opponents, and would take money away from those who really mean to speak
    As opposed to private financing which leads to allowing exclusive access to the wealthy, gives the wealthy the power to decide BOTH parties in an election, and would take power away from those who really mean to speak, but whose agenda conflicts with the agenda of the wealthy elites.

    Regarding rationing, there is no reason that incumbents would necessarily be able to ration funds and thereby access. In fact, the opposite would probably be true, because incumbents would naturally try to increase the amount of public funding for their campaigns, which would also increase funding for their challengers.

    You are making a false choice here between free speech and limited speech. The choice is really between free speech for those who are able to afford it and free speech for anyone who is motivated to speak.

    Money is not speech.

    What I’m more concerned with isn’t the speech itself, but the disparity in access to audiences. But campaign finance reform is not going to solve that problem.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 1712 hrs




79. So people should be forced to pay to advocate ideas that they disagree with?  You should be forced to pay for supporting Bush’s policies?

    Posted by Owen on March 30, 2007 at 1713 hrs




80. Why people are so eager to embrace public campaign financing is beyond me.

    Who decides who gets the $? The legislature? The executive? The party in power? Some faceless bureaucrat? Great idea 100% grade A government approved candidates. Hey, sign me up I want some of that gravy.

    I know the right wing proponent of campaign finance reform in this state wants to do it because he wants to muzzle WEACy.

    Posted by Marcus Aurelius on March 30, 2007 at 1717 hrs




81. As opposed to private financing which leads to allowing exclusive access to the wealthy, gives the wealthy the power to decide BOTH parties in an election, and would take power away from those who really mean to speak, but whose agenda conflicts with the agenda of the wealthy elites.

    You know what I find funny about that?  You are writing it on a blog that reaches tens of thousands of likely voters.  A blog that costs next to nothing to publish.  Technology is rendering the CFR arguments meaningless.

    Posted by Owen on March 30, 2007 at 1717 hrs




82. I wonder how Frederick Douglas would have felt about financing pro-slavery candidates? Hmmm.

    Posted by Marcus Aurelius on March 30, 2007 at 1718 hrs




83. candidates are not products. Treating them as such encourages them to use the same tactics that are used in the realm of commerce- manipulative appeals to emotion, the emphasis on style over substance, attacks on competitors that may not be entirely truthful, and promises that are based more on what consumers want to hear than reality.

    It is undeniable that in order to succeed in politics, an individual must be acceptable to the people who are in a position to donate thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. Therefore, individuals that have intentions that are not acceptable to those wealthy donors do not have a chance at being elected to national office, even if they would be more effective at representing the interests of the other 90% of us.

    which leads me back to my earlier question: JIAWM- are you comfortable allowing the super rich to serve as the guardians of our political discourse?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 1722 hrs




84. Money is speech (if you want to speak).  I wrote a whole post explaining why. 

    http://electriccommentary.blogspot.com/2007/03/money -speech.html

    Posted by PaulNoonan on March 30, 2007 at 1745 hrs




85. djheru- No.  Which is why I get so pissed at my fellow voters for always choosing “Democrats” and “Republicans” when those two parties clearly suck balls.  I would rather my fellow voters spent some time learing about the issues and figuring out who the best candidates instead of being intelectual weaklings and voting for whatever they’re serving up on the candidate buffet.  But since most voters are such idiots about picking candidates based on who’s showing them the prettiest pictures and brightest lights, who am I to fault the candidates/campaigns for giving the mouth-breathers what they ask for?

    I doubt I’ll ever see a candidate I actually like win an election in my lifetime.  Luckily for people like me, all we can do is be glad that you guys can’t screw things up too bad thanks to the Constitution.  That and grid-lock.  Can you understand when I get a little upset when you Democrats and Republicans try to stomp all over that like you are doing here?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 1746 hrs




86. Technology is rendering the CFR arguments meaningless.

    Owen, I like you.  You have a swell blog.  But you clearly have an inflated sense of your own importance.  The internet rendering television and radio “meaningless” in political campaigns?  Still a dream. 

    Jesus, maybe it suits you to just throw up your hands and call voters idiots.  Me, I’d rather take human nature as a given and work with it. 

    djheru, your just-previous post (83) perfectly encapsulates the problem.  Thanks.

    Another thought occurs.  Half the time you public finance nay-sayers are fretting over the amount of control it will allow over who can say what - but the other half of the time you’re worrying about whether we’ll have insufficient control over that speech (i.e., “do you want to pay for positions you disagree with?”).  You can’t have it both ways.

    I think giving free airtime to viable state and national candidates as a condition of broadcast licensure is a perfectly moderate answer to the problems djheru so eloquently described above.  It limits nobody’s spending or speech, yet it allows for voices to be heard who do not necessarily appeal to the super rich.  IMO we could use some more of those voices.  Spreading democracy a little more evenly is no bad thing.  And the potential costs and risks seem well worth it.

    Posted by scott on March 30, 2007 at 1825 hrs




87. Why not publicly fund campaigns?  As Thomas Jefferson put it, “To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 1918 hrs




88. Out of context, not meant as an absolute.  Obviously.  Faith-based initiative anyone?  Iraq war, anyone?  ANYTHING, anyone?  Please.

    Posted by scott on March 30, 2007 at 1920 hrs




89. I ask again if anyone is familiar with the kids of policies other democratic nations have.

    Scott, our nation is a “republic”.

    Posted by Chris on May 10, 2007 at 1039 hrs




90. And that’s supposed to mean what to this discussion?

    Posted by scott on May 10, 2007 at 1052 hrs