um, no they didn't. Hey, anybody there? Hello? Hey!...

Yeah they did.

this is a step in the right direction

Kiss your first ammendment rights goodbye.

oh. well good then.

What a bunch of Idots. Link should be Dumbass not cool.

churhill, your misinformed

Actually, I submitted this one. They kept my sucky headline, but I originally had a NewsFlash on it.

If Rush Limbaugh says it, it must be true!

next topics to battle over in Congress, what scotch to buy for the easter party, and where to fly to for spring break, of course, on the tax payer dime

If you only hear half the story you're misinformed.

Will this thread turn into a conservatives-only biatchfest, or a liberals-only biatchfest? Only time will tell!

I wonder who the 40 thieves were that voted against this.

Churchill, what half do I not know?

Off-topic, but McCain last night on The Daily Show gave me new respect for the guy...no, seriously!

Ok... so finally the election process will be free of influence...any moment now.... just waiting patiently...........

Incomplete steps are not steps in the right direction.

FibonacciSeq

How is keeping people from buying air time to make a political statement not an abridgment of the 1st amendment?

Nope, this is a first amd. issue plain and simply.

This will almost surely not pass SCOTUS muster, assuming bush is enough of a pansy not to veto the monstrosity.

Check out Buckley v. Valeo, c.1973 or so. Already been there, done this.

Plus, this legislation will have 2 effects if stands:
1)Enhance incumbents chances of staying in office. (Big shock that it passed, eh?)
2)Simply increase the proportional amount of influence that large organizations (be they business or non profit) have on gov't as compared to regular grassroots type activism. Yay.

Oh well, at least we still have the net. For now.

I saw McCain on The Daily Show last night too... got to admit I kinda like the guy. Scary.

Soupgoblin: Here's the votes thingy.

Astra: I thought the headline was hilarious. One of these days McCain is going to snap like an over-stretched bungee cord.

McCain is great. Probably the only repub politician I don't hate. If only he would have been the one to run against Gore..

From article:Opponents of the bill, led by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, argue that banning soft money contributions is tantamount to violating the First Amendment 's right to free speech.

Um...yeah. Enjoy your last term, Mr. McConnell.

How is the undue and unequitable big money spending of issue ads really a freedom of speech? Only a minority is speaking?

Thank you Glenlivid, it was all I could come up with while trying to get it in quick. I happened to be on CNN's site just as they announced it on TV.

When he snaps, I can think of a couple politicians I'd like to see in his direct path.

Liberal thread !!!!! Liberals do it in the Oval Office, Conservatives bug the Oval Office.

Fox News Slogan- We Distort, You Decide !

At least we can still smear shiat on pictures of Jesus. That was the freedom of speech that the framers were most concerned with.

That and the ability to follow the Olsen twins around with a hidden camera, of course.

FibonacciSeq
Not that I agree with your point at all but...
So we do not protect the speach of a minority?
Don't let your hate of "big buisness" cloud your judgement.

Saw McCain on the Daily Show, funny man, serious campaign reform bill.

I would have never guessed that PA Senator Santorum would vote against this bill....he is the biggest piece of shiat in the Senate....now if my fellow Pennsylvanians would take notice and VOTE THIS FARKING BUM outta office next time, Pennsylvania be such a better place for all of us


*other noted NO votes:
Sen. Helmes--Sen. Hatch---Sen. Thurmond...sense a pattern here, all the old guard who NEED that soft $ to survive and kick back favors to their corporate buddies...what a farking joke WHERE ARE TERM LIMITS????

Ham :At least we can still smear shiat on pictures of Jesus. That was the freedom of speech that the framers were most concerned with.

Hey, if it's legal to smear shiat, why not a picture of Jesus? Until they finally pass that anti-shiat-smearing law...

Of course, it is here tha Republicans suddenly go all PC and say that since it's offensive it should be illegal.

Vote Libertarian.

Drink Guiness.

That is all.

The part that bothers me the most about the bill is the following:

The amendment also provides that a group making electioneering communications that total $10,000 or more in an election cycle must disclose its identity, the cost of the communication, and the names and addresses of all contributors of $1,000 or more to the sponsor of the communication within the cycle.

there are are protections for right to speak for any minority or majority but not ones that are undue and inequitable in a political arena.

Wldncrzy14 McCain did try to run against Gore... problem was he had to run against a chimp with a powerful family first.

I have a better solution than this. Anybody, company, group, organization or what have you can contribute as much as they want to any particular campaign up to a certain number of days before an election. The catch is that ALL money goes into a fund for that campaign, rather than being given to a particular candidate or party, and the monies are then distributed equally to all candidates to run an equal campaign. I mean the unions and other people couldn't object to this since it would be true democracy. Right?

This is a good thing. Politicians are crooked as all hell and each and every single one of you know this.

You have to be a complete fool not to see how money is what drives our government and elections.

This is no longer our government. It's not even your money.

Trent Lott voted nay. Why am I not surprised?

I would hate to be this Senator.
Just look at that banner.

Grand: How? Buckley v Valeo established that it was necessary to restrict contributions to combat corruption, or even the appearance of corruption.


And so many people seem to think this will outlaw televised speech within 60 days of an election. That's a bold-faced lie, and a product of the oppositions 'propaganda campaign', if you wanna call it that. What it does do is demand that the FEC know where the money for an ad is coming from when that ad mentions a candidate by name Sorry, but I can't go on TV an claim, as fact, that (your name here) kills babies and likes it, then hide behind the first amendment. That is what these issue ads have come to, and what's rediculous about the complaints against the new regulations, is that they can STILL do it. They just have to do it through the FEC so that viewers know where the money came from, and who put spent it on the ad.

which bill? why should i click this link? what information do i get that's useful to my life?

OK, I agree this is a problem, but this piece of legislation is bad.

1) This bill will not end influence of money in politics. It will simply push it further underground. You think this bill will end politician's corruptness/currying favor for money?

2) Corporations will take on an even bigger role in support and election of candidates (they already have begun) -- thereby minimizing your first ammendment right.

3) It is based primarily on studies which admittedly understate political donations by special interest groups. With no adjustment for individual donations over time. (Find statistics which support your cause & stick with em.) These studies identify groups like Common Cause as a "citizen's lobbying organization" but the National Rifle Association as a "special interest group". The NRA is a group of citizens looking to lobby congress for laws which benefit their group (just like Common Cause) -- why are they special interest and Common Cause isn't?

4) It is pushed through on the basis of the Enron collapse. Knee-jerk legislation is hardly a solution to what is admittedly a serious problem.

5) Restricts free speech 30 days before primaries and 60 days before elections. I know it's companies, but that's the law that's being proposed here. Free speech should be free speech -- no matter who's making it.

etc., etc., etc.

That is where I feel that you are wrong FibonacciSeq
Unpopular (inequitable or not) political speech is the base reason for the first amendment. If it is such a problem why only target tv adds? Why leave print media,radio,internet... et al alone?

Walkman - You are a genius.
::bong hit::
Don't blame me, I voted for Nader.

Forget badmouthing candidates 60 days prior to the elections. The mods are gonna have a field day keeping up.

Our first Amendment rights have already suffered under Ashcroft. This won't hurt them a bit.

well, whatever they decide will be ok with me. i'm sure they'll make the rules by which they govern themselves just and equitable, and with the good of the country as a whole foremost in their minds. oh well, off to Applebees.

Biohazard :The part that bothers me the most about the bill is the following: The amendment also provides that a group making electioneering communications that total $10,000 or more in an election cycle must disclose its identity, the cost of the communication, and the names and addresses of all contributors of $1,000 or more to the sponsor of the communication within the cycle.

Unless I'm missing something, I have no problem with this.

Walkman: I think that's a great idea. As long as the money is spread between ALL candidates, not just Democrat and Republican. It is here that you can see why they'd never allow this to occur. The 2 main parties suddenly become a unified front when any course of action helping other parties threatens them.

Brandanbragg
Uh, this is Fark. How much useful information do you usually get from farkicles?

AT LAST!

Lord, and it took the Enron mess to get this one over the top. Sheesh!

As for those of you biatching about the loss of First Ammendment rights by the very rich, just remember the famous
A. J. Liebling line...Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.

Let's hear it for a _slightly_ more level playing field.

I've got one good reason why this campaign finance bill is one of the dumbest things the Senate has ever done: PETA.

That's right, PETA. This campaign finance bill puts soft money limits on parties, but NOT ON SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. Therefore, the knuckleheads over at PETA just got a whole lot of clout because they are going to become a de facto party, wielding power over the Democratic party come election time.

Wait a minute, I'm moderate/conservative. Nevermind....