It’s not a loophole. It’s just a bad law
Campaign Finance Law May Have A Loophole
Some Issue Ads Could Be Exempt, Justices Say
This quote grabbed my attention:
“This is a delaying tactic by the Supreme Court,” said Richard L. Hasen, a professor of election law at Loyola University in Los Angeles. “However, with the Supreme Court changing and the realistic potential that the new justices will be more sympathetic” to critics of campaign finance regulation, yesterday’s decision “could be the opening salvo in a battle to scale back the regulation of campaign finance.”
I’m for getting rid of the 2002 Incumbent Protection Act. Seems more people are figuring out that it’s bad law.
January 26th, 2006 at 2:12 am
I’d ask if you have a better idea, but what would be the point?
January 26th, 2006 at 7:31 am
Well, a better idea is not to just pass a law (any law) because they perceive something just needs to be done, gosh darn it. Here’s a newsflash: I can criticize stuff without offering a better idea. Or saying that the non-existence of this law is a ‘better idea.’ I’m under no obligation to say ‘this law is bad’ then offer an alternative or give a dissertation on what I think should be done.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Term limits is a better idea
January 26th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Real ethics form would be grand (at the federal level and here in Tennessee), but McCain-Feingold wasn’t it.
I’d like to see an end to politicians using private jets for travel without paying. It’s just blatantly wrong for a Congressman to fly around the country in ProfitCo’s Gulfstream and then pretend like he’s not beholden to them.
January 26th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
The best idea is a drastic reduction in the size, power, and reach of government.
The surest way to get money out of politics is to keep the government out of making money.
Start with earmarks, then the tax code, then the regulatory state.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
See, to me, the better idea is simply to pass amendments to the bill to fix the couple of oversights that threaten personal liberty. This is where you and I disagree: I think McCain-Feingold ultimately does more good than harm, in particular because the gloom-and-doom parts people tend to gripe about are (1) easily fixable; and (2) unenforced anyway.
Of course, if you think money = speech, and that everyone has a right to free speech but the wealthy have more right to it than the non-wealthy, we’re not going to see eye-to-eye on this one.
I just get a little tired of people (not necessarily you, but people in general) pretending that McCain-Feingold is a horrific affront to liberty on anything approaching the level of, say, warrantless wiretapping of US citizens, or “enemy combatants” held indefinitely without charges and without access to counsel. (Imagine: “You’re being held at gitmo? Big hairy deal! I’m limited to a $2,000 campaign contribution!”)
January 26th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Per the act, so many days before an election, ads are restricted that criticize (or maybe even mention) a politico. That, tom, is an affront to liberty, specifically the freedom to criticize political candidates.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Funny, I don’t recall any shortage of attack ads in the run-up to the 2004 election…
January 26th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
And actually, the 30-day ban is not nearly so omnious as you seem to think. Per the act, in the 60-days before a general election (or 30 days before a primary election), such “issue ads” cannot run if they mention candidates and do not explicitly call for that candidate’s election or defeat. What does this mean?
– Ads saying “Kerry is an asshole” can be run by the campaign of Kerry’s opponent, and they can be run by one of the parties.
– Ads saying “Kerry is an asshole” can be run by other groups, provided they go on to say “defeat Kerry.”
– No, a third-party group can’t run a “Kerry is an asshole” ad without explicitly calling for Kerry’s defeat.
As we saw in 2004, these restrictions had no noticable impact on the number or ferocity of attack ads.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
And that’s stupid and an infringement. I, as a third party, should be able to say ‘kerry is an asshole. vote for this other asshole.’ if I want.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
Tom, McCain-Feingold isn’t all bad. It did lead directly to the creation of NRANews. 🙂
January 26th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
TGirsch, an attemt to quiet the volume with which money talks at campaign time is not worth allowing them to muzzle the poor or middle at campaign times. And yes, most of us on this side of the fence absolutely value free speech over privacy of that speech or even habeas corpus. Imagine: “Someone listened to your phone call to Syria? Big hairy deal! I’m being held at Leavenworth for posting too much about the candidates!”
January 27th, 2006 at 1:49 am
EC:
Our fundamental disagreement seems to be that you equate “freedom of speech” with “freedom to buy advertising,” whereas I do not. That’s why your complaints about these clauses in McCain-Feingold strike me as rather akin to complaining that you can’t buy ad space for Hustler during Saturday morning cartoons.
McCain-Feingold doesn’t prevent anyone from openly criticizing anyone. You seem to act as if restrictions on where and how money can be spent to disseminate a particular message somehow equates to preventing people from expressing their opinions or their discontent, but it simply ain’t so.
There are plenty of reasonable limitations on our speech: I can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater (unless, of course, there actually is a fire); I can’t incite people to violence; and I can’t buy an attack ad without explicitly endorsing or renouncing a candidate. None of this prevents me from expressing my dissatisfaction with the government (which I do often).
January 27th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
TGirsch, I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding on this rather than disagreement. While it is intended to limit advertising and talks as if it does, it would in fact limit speech if applied. If you or I talk about a candidate on blogs or by email, we are subjected under M-F to advertising rules, such as tracking the value of our free ‘advertising’ to the candidate and reporting it as a campaign contribution, despite the fact no money is spent, and no ad space is involved. My objections have nothing to do with buying advertising.
January 28th, 2006 at 10:12 am
EC:
Which gets us back to those “easily fixable” and “unenforced anyway” points I mentioned above. 🙂 But honestly, I think your objections are different than those of others who have commented here (although maybe not); they seem to be objecting to any restrictions on advertising.
And I suppose that depends how you view advertising. Some, apparently, view it as speech, whereas I think it looks a whole lot more like commerce.