Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC News) NewsFlash Portion of campaign finance law declared unconstitutional   ( divider line
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

10420 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 May 2003 at 4:32 PM (14 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

359 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

2003-05-02 05:19:03 PM  
bluedog, by not voting at all, youre just a prole. i agree it doesnt make a difference if you just vote, but you gotta let other people know where you stand to make any impact. democracy is just a made up word like freedom, but yo, if ive learned anything from the douchebags in charge, its that you gotta manipulate things that get said to affect others' opinions. im just not well-spoken enough to convince anyone of anything yet.
if you give up hope, then hope is lost.
2003-05-02 05:19:33 PM  
"If it ain't SCOTUS, it's Craaaaaaaap"
2003-05-02 05:19:44 PM  
ShutUpHippies says...

You liberals complain everytime you think (HAH! "Think" and "Liberal" in the same sentence) your rights under the constitution are being trampled on, but when a blatantly unconstitutional law is struck down protecting your free speech, you biatch and moan.

Having a problem figuring out what you stand for?

Dude, you took the words right out of my mouth. BTW, don't try to slap a tag on me either. I scored a 16.
2003-05-02 05:20:03 PM  
I'd be happy to consider the extreme, buddy. But with the possible exception of frothy little Brazil over there, nobody out here in Corporeal-Realityville is seriously thinking about the extreme.
Of course us scary "informed" people don't believe in zero corporate donations, just like we don't believe in zero public religion, zero war, zero guns, or baby-eating.
Philosophy and logical extensions are all well and good (Diogenes pointed out an illuminating one)
but in the end, we need a realistic form of control over campaign finance, including facilities for free airtime and press coverage in the interest of the democratic process. Does that mean I hate freedom?
2003-05-02 05:20:13 PM  
- I love how the Supreme Court is now "SCOTUS". This is ironic due to the fact that we get the word "Dunce" from Jons
Duns Scotus, some guy who lived in england a while back and was actually really smart, but then people started using his
name ironically in reference to really stupid people. Sort of like "Oh, good one, EINSTEIN!"

Good one Confewshus, I learn something every day.
2003-05-02 05:20:19 PM  
my vote is negated by the electoral college. My state will go republican on a year texas goes democrat
2003-05-02 05:21:21 PM  
You mean the electrical college?
2003-05-02 05:21:39 PM  
2003-05-02 05:21:43 PM  
well kids time to buy your president!
2003-05-02 05:21:52 PM  
no but that would be cool
2003-05-02 05:22:09 PM  
GanGan: I understand. What I'm saying is that one's advocacy of a candidate should not be worth more when accompanied by more money. Ergo, putting a cap on donations should not be considered limiting the expression of that advocacy. You and I probably have different salaries, but our votes will count just the same come election day.

Although, I may be wrong on that last point: I live in Florida. My vote actually might be worth more!
2003-05-02 05:22:18 PM  
If you know nothing else about an election bet on the guy who spent the most money.

That is usually true. But this is because of the mild similar message that most of them toss out.

Also, I know that the squeaky wheel usually gets the oil. Maybe we should limit how much anyone can say.
2003-05-02 05:22:21 PM  
Redrobot -- Yes, if you go as far as compelling or restricting speech merely for some notion of outcome-based equality.
2003-05-02 05:22:33 PM  
It's just their way of saying "Thanks for keeping us here and proffering more right-wing judges."
2003-05-02 05:23:21 PM  
Private parties should be allowed to give however much money they want to whomever they want. Campaign finance laws are ridiculous.

The problem is not that rich people and big corporations can give tons of cash in order to get preferred treatment from politicians. The problem is that politicians have sufficient power to provide these favors in the first place! Limit the power of government to its valid roles (police, military, courts), and this problem--along with countless others--will disappear.
2003-05-02 05:23:37 PM  
Look at all the Evil corporations who fought it!
"Dozens of groups joined their effort to overturn parts of the law, including the Republican National Committee, the Democratic and Republican parties of California, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Libertarian National Committee, the National Right to Life Committee and the National Association of Broadcasters." - From the article if you read it

GanGan - I never said that. But we dont need laws that prohibit free speech in any form.
2003-05-02 05:24:08 PM  
i see, Diogenes, i missed the point of what you were saying compleatly, you must think me a right puddin' head
2003-05-02 05:24:12 PM  

now THATS a good idea
2003-05-02 05:24:12 PM  
[image from too old to be available]
Kim Jong Il say "Flip on the juice, kill me now!"
2003-05-02 05:24:34 PM  

hehe. And here I was, thinking that that little UBI would never be relevant in any way, shape, or form. Of course, now that I've told everyone, it is no longer my very own little piece of special knowledge. sigh.

/ is no longer special
2003-05-02 05:24:38 PM  
Peace out, folks! Goin' home an' gettin' dee-runk.
2003-05-02 05:25:12 PM  

That's WAY too logical. Support one or the other or get off of fark and out of America. There are only 2 ways to do things and if yuo don't like it, then the government doesn't care what you think.
2003-05-02 05:25:30 PM  
What does 'free speech' have to do with a corporations ability to give millions to politicians for their election campaigns in return for the enacting of laws which are biased towards themselves? What has that got to do with DEMOCRACY, where a majority is supposed to rule?
That is all I want to know. Doesn't sound very FREE to me.
2003-05-02 05:26:49 PM  
and just how long has money==speech been true?

I think we ought to change the writing on our bills from "In God we trust" to "This god we trust"
2003-05-02 05:26:50 PM  
A point of interest: We would not need campaign finance reform to solve our political woes if the media would get off their sensationalist asses and do their farking jobs....
2003-05-02 05:26:52 PM  
Today is once again a 'booby-less' friday. Kittens rejoice....
2003-05-02 05:27:00 PM  
I'm out for the day as well.

"So long, and thanks for all the fish"
2003-05-02 05:27:08 PM  
is it me, or are the libertarians getting more converts everyday? 3 of my friends recently went libertarian (2 were repubs one was a demo)

Rearden's post made me think of this
2003-05-02 05:27:29 PM  
Don't worry Confewshus you're still spe.............

yeah right, it's over pal.
2003-05-02 05:28:27 PM  
Kim Jong Il say "Oh shiiittaa, that wasn't cut."
2003-05-02 05:28:30 PM  
hehe. yeah, i guess it's true. oh well, at least work is done and I can go drink beer!

/ is going to drink til he's special again
2003-05-02 05:29:33 PM  
Im off myself, have a good weekend all.

mmmmmmmm beer.
2003-05-02 05:29:34 PM  
But with the possible exception of frothy little Brazil over there, nobody out here in Corporeal-Realityville is seriously thinking about the extreme.

Philosophy and logical extensions are all well and good
but in the end, we need a realistic form of control over campaign finance, including facilities for free airtime and press coverage in the interest of the democratic process. Does that mean I hate freedom?

I'm frothy! Who's the 'we' that is exercising control? You and your pragmatic friends that don't understand Liberty and Rights? Oh.. I see... Liberty and Rights are all well and good philosophical concepts... but they need to be realistically controlled.
2003-05-02 05:30:17 PM  
I am really disappointed to see that the laws weren't upheld whereby the only people who could do political ads were going to be Rainbow Coalition, Answer, Now and Peta. I am truly heartbroken.

Jam it McCool.
2003-05-02 05:31:03 PM  
Korovyov, I see you've got brickwallitis.

Restricting money=!restricting speech.
Responsibility=!curtailment of freedom.
Just like cross-burning=!flag-burning, although I'm sure some of you more insensitive creeps will want to discuss that at length.

First amendment=!license to perpetuate an UNfree, IRResponsible, UNdemocratic system.

And don't you righties claim any kind of consistency about your feelings for the first amemdment. Perhaps I make assumptions, but I'm sure you were pretty gung-ho about military censorship. I have a feeling you didn't mind Rudy Giuliani's censorship of the NEA-sponsored art he found offensive. And I bet you just can't stand war protesters, those treacherous freakazoids.
Everybody has a different set of restrictions on their personal interpretation of the first amendment.
I don't know what yours are about. Mine are about democracy.
2003-05-02 05:31:39 PM  
Democracy is a sham! It's probably the most corrupt government system out there. The voting is rigged, politicians are bought, corporations make the laws, the president abuses his power in order to make more money for his campaign contributors, and all under the guise of being a government "for the people, of the people, by the people".

It seems that if a government doesn't exercise totalitarian oppression, it becomes corrupted by the corporations' freedom to use their money to bribe politicians. In that case, I accept hardcore pure Evil over sissy boy poser Greed anyday. Better to have a government where the strong and powerful survive rather than the yuppies with the most money. DARWINISM RULZ!
2003-05-02 05:31:43 PM  

I hear that. I went Libertarian a few months ago, and my friends (after seriously considering what the party stands for) are switching as well. It's just that after a while, you realize that by voting for one of the 2 major parties nothing important will ever change. There are fundamental things that should be looked at (like Rearden's post pointed out) that NEITHER party are willing to look at.
2003-05-02 05:31:55 PM  
MonkeyButler</b so the AFL-CIO fought it twice? Oh, and the article does not mention those specific groups. Nice try.
2003-05-02 05:31:57 PM  
is there any cantidate out there that would take rainbow coalition, answer, or peta money? If so they better keep quiet about it.
2003-05-02 05:32:16 PM  
of course they declared it unconstitutional... the person who appointed these judges was elected by those corporations and just are just as much in their pocket as the president himself...
2003-05-02 05:32:23 PM  
Should have gotten the [image from too old to be available]
2003-05-02 05:32:36 PM  
Pjbreeze -- You are free to organize people to donate money towards causes you prefer, if you so choose. You are not free to restrict somebody else's efforts.
2003-05-02 05:33:06 PM  
Let's see, if this was upheld, no ads could be purchased within 60 days of the electiion. Then the only coverage would be media coverage, which they get to slect. So, they could in effect broadcast all the photos ops of their candidate, and none of the opposing candidate, and it would be legal. This would have allowed the media to select winners. Anyone could see the weakness in this.
2003-05-02 05:33:08 PM  
I have to admit to myself that I'd rather have terrorists do their thing to me rather than have corporations slowly sap my life away.
2003-05-02 05:33:32 PM  
If corporations control everything... Why are there so many regulations?
2003-05-02 05:33:35 PM  
Spare me. Defeatist retoric and excuse making. Have a pont other than rolling over becasue a man with a title said to.

Defeatist rhetoric and excuse-making? Actually, it was a statement of fact. It may suck, but it's a law. If this particular law pisses you off, try to change it instead of rattling the bars of your cage that were placed around you by "a man with a title."

Galleleo called, he want's to confernce with you and Darwin about ideas and authority.

Sorry, I'm on the other line with Ghandi and Dr King, discussing the relative merits of reaching for another plate of tacos instead of getting off you ass and DOING SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT PISSES YOU OFF.

You want to change the world? Fine, but I'll bet you it won't happen from account 65480.
2003-05-02 05:34:06 PM  
Boy, that was an awkward post.
2003-05-02 05:34:14 PM  
Redrobot -- Don't pretend to know my opinions. It might even astonish you to know that I belong to no party, never attend rallies or protests, and have no American flags.
2003-05-02 05:34:16 PM  
I told you this would happen!

The election ads, and when you can run them is a smack in the face of the constitutions free speech.

Im off to drink to freedom!
2003-05-02 05:34:52 PM  
That's right, Brazil, my pet, they do. Like all good philosophical concepts.
Just like, you know, war.
And obscenity.
And freeways.
And tempers.

I know you'll be tempted to shout "Heretic" at me, my friend. I ask that you use that impulse to call into question your own "perfectly rational" philosophies. Unlimited Liberty and Rights, my big black ass.
Displayed 50 of 359 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.