Super Tuesday (and the other primaries)

[Demosthenes11]

I'm talking about not being able to talk about a candidate 30 days prior to a caucus/primary and 60 days before a general election.

maybe you should have explained it more then because most people recognize the most significant aspect of the bill is the impact on campaign finance.

wow, have you never heard people saying that the bill restricts free-speech? I would think if you had known anything about it, it would have been painfully apparent...

[Charla]

Yeah, I know. Someone needs to mention that aspect of the debate in the wikipedia page or something.

edit: more precise wording

[archibaldcrane]

Yeah, I know. Someone needs to mention that in the wikipedia page or something.

It's in the wiki page:

As noted in McConnell v. FEC, a United States Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, the Act was designed to address two issues:

* The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;
* The proliferation of issue ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union funds.

Bolded is the part that restricts freedom of speech. It prevents an end-around in campaign finance reform, making it so corporations couldn't just run their own ads for or against candidates, since they could no longer donate unlimited contributions to campaigns. It functions to silence criticism and/or support for candidates, which is bad, but helps remove some corporate influence and corruption among candidates as well, which is good. Some think it's a First Amendment-violating travesty, some think it's a necessary evil. I have a hard time getting worked up over it either way, recognizing that it's pretty much impossible to remove corporate influence from candidates without restricting free speech.

[aurik]

paid for ... using any corporate or union funds.

That's restriction on corporate speech, which is not protected as individual speech via the 1st amendment. See also: restrictions on cigarette / alcohol ads targeting minors.

[archibaldcrane]

paid for ... using any corporate or union funds.

That's restriction on corporate speech, which is not protected as individual speech via the 1st amendment. See also: restrictions on cigarette / alcohol ads targeting minors.

So, for instance, Rupert Murdoch could fund an ad out of his own pocket, but not using his media conglomerate's money?

Ok, seems fine to me. I wasn't sure how they got around the first amendment, thanks Aurik.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

paid for ... using any corporate or union funds.

That's restriction on corporate speech, which is not protected as individual speech via the 1st amendment. See also: restrictions on cigarette / alcohol ads targeting minors.

So, for instance, Rupert Murdoch could fund an ad out of his own pocket, but not using his media conglomerate's money?

Ok, seems fine to me. I wasn't sure how they got around the first amendment, thanks Aurik.

He could, but he couldn't mention the candidates name.

[aurik]

paid for ... using any corporate or union funds.

That's restriction on corporate speech, which is not protected as individual speech via the 1st amendment. See also: restrictions on cigarette / alcohol ads targeting minors.

So, for instance, Rupert Murdoch could fund an ad out of his own pocket, but not using his media conglomerate's money?

Ok, seems fine to me. I wasn't sure how they got around the first amendment, thanks Aurik.

He could, but he couldn't mention the candidates name.

Wrong, if he pays for it with his own money, he can say any name he wants.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I could be wrong on that, but corporations includes non-profits. And this is hardly comparable to alcohol and cigarette ads.

[archibaldcrane]

I could be wrong on that, but corporations includes non-profits. And this is hardly comparable to alcohol and cigarette ads.

It's another restriction on corporate/union/non-profit speech that isn't affected by the first amendment. It's an apt analogy.

Knowing that it isn't a restriction on the speech of individuals, are you now less against it Swampy?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

If it's true, somewhat.

[Charla]

It's true that it's not really comparable to cigarette/alcohol ads though. For one thing, it only applies for 90 days out of every 4 years.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

It's also not comparable because it's assumed when your 18+ you can make decisions for yourself and you don't need protection. It was almost funny, better luck next time smartass.

[Charla]

I'd rather be a smartass than a dumbass!

[Xavier]

You haven't suggested anything that we don't already have. Your hypothetical "no-party" system would in actuality function eerily similar to the current two party system. All you've done is removed labels.

I didn't exactly put a ton of thought into this. However, think for a minute about how often you hear about a state being for one party or the other and how a candidate from the opposing party will either have to put in double the effort to win that state, or should just write it off altogether. Doesn't that suggest that people are currently just voting for candidates based on their party and not necessarily their stance on issues?

There's also situations like John McCain, he's a Republican with many traditional GoP views, but because he's not seen as Republican enough he has to worry about his own party sabotaging him despite the fact that he's obviously the candidate the people want.

Again, all you've suggested is removing labels. The actuality of the situation would remain unchanged.

The example you gave does not automatically suggest blind adherence to a party, that is your own interpretation of the situation. When pundits say that X candidate is likely to lose X state because its likely to vote Republican, all they've really said is that a majority of people in X state have certain beliefs that are most likely not represented by X candidate. It is quite natural for them to suggest that X candidate will have to work doubly hard in X state to win voters because those voters are most likely not going to agree with his stance on the issues. Applying labels to people is a convenient way to quickly summarize the beliefs they most likely embody.

If anything, it suggests that people are in actuality voting for candidates based their personal stance on issues, since presumably any candidate who would apply a label to themselves is accepting the connotations that label has to offer. Belonging to a party -is- a representation of your stance on issues, because parties have a political platform. Voting for your party is merely a rephrasing of voting based on your beliefs.

[aurik]

I could be wrong on that, but corporations includes non-profits.

It does indeed include non-profit groups such as political action groups. They can continue to promote the issue they care about freely. However, if they wish to spend money advertising a candidate rather than advertising an issue, they need to comply with the campaign finance reforms.

Was recently dealt with in a supreme court case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_El ... ife%2C_Inc.

"The court ruled that unless an ad could not reasonably be interpreted as anything other than an ad urging the support or defeat of a candidate, it [qualifies as] an exception" to the discussed provision.

Further, the provision doesn't apply to individuals or coalitions of individuals which are not supported by corporate/union funds.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Well I stand corrected.

[archibaldcrane]

I just took issue because I think that Feingold is awesome, and I don't tolerate criticism of him lightly.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

It's still a free speech infringement though. Just not on as many people as I thought.

[Kuya]

It's still a free speech infringement though. Just not on as many people as I thought.

Yea, much like not being able to say bomb in an airport. It doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

[archibaldcrane]

It's still a free speech infringement though. Just not on as many people as I thought.

It's ok, they can just fund 527 groups instead.