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.

(NPR)   Mitch McConnell: The free speech of rights of the super rich are being threatened because they cannot give millions of dollars to Super PACs and remain anonymous. Please, won't someone think of the plight of the billionaires   (npr.org) divider line 153
    More: Asinine, Mitch McConnell, consultations, free speeches, Norman Ornstein, Amway  
•       •       •

1569 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jun 2012 at 11:11 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



153 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-20 10:10:09 AM
I'm not aware of any right at all to anonymous speech.
 
2012-06-20 10:12:08 AM
It's been eye-opening and amusing to see how very sensitive the Masters of the Universe are to exposure and criticism. One would think that people with the ability to buy anything in life wouldn't care so much about their precious feelings and reputations, but they do. Immensely. It's said that politicians are vain and egocentric, but that's not entirely true: it takes a thick skin and high tolerance for abuse to go into public office. It's not a pleasant place to be for those who constantly crave praise.

No, it seems that the people with the thinnest skins and most bloviated egos lie not at the top of the political chain, but at the top of the financial pecking order. It's about time they took a little more heat and were exposed to a little more sunlight. Link
 
2012-06-20 10:19:28 AM

DamnYankees: I'm not aware of any right at all to anonymous speech.


Hell, you even have to give your coordinates to Fark to post pics of squirrel testicles.
 
2012-06-20 10:22:57 AM

DamnYankees: I'm not aware of any right at all to anonymous speech.


From the bit I caught on NPR this morning, I think that was one of the points -- political speech (in this case "money") is definition a public action; to expect anonymity, but demand influence on the public process is contradictory.
 
2012-06-20 10:24:49 AM
I'm not aware of too many things. I know what I know if you know what I mean.

/Mitch McConnell is a black belt douchebag and I hope he gets shell cancer.
 
2012-06-20 10:28:52 AM
Anonymity renders your speech verbal graffiti.
 
2012-06-20 10:37:26 AM
I think the question nobody is really asking is...why would these people WANT to remain anonymous? What do they have to hide? Why not be proud of the people, issues, and causes you support with your abundance?
 
2012-06-20 10:52:06 AM

SurfaceTension: I think the question nobody is really asking is...why would these people WANT to remain anonymous? What do they have to hide? Why not be proud of the people, issues, and causes you support with your abundance?


Sun Tzu said it best.
"If I determine the enemy's disposition of forces while I have no perceptible form, I can concentrate my forces while the enemy is fragmented. The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless: if it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it nor the wise make plans against it."
 
2012-06-20 10:54:35 AM

Party Boy: SurfaceTension: I think the question nobody is really asking is...why would these people WANT to remain anonymous? What do they have to hide? Why not be proud of the people, issues, and causes you support with your abundance?

Sun Tzu said it best. "If I determine the enemy's disposition of forces while I have no perceptible form, I can concentrate my forces while the enemy is fragmented. The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless: if it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it nor the wise make plans against it."


This is how The Family operates.

Fun Fact: Hillary is a member. Not that many people would know that.
 
2012-06-20 10:57:32 AM
I thought this were the "if you didn't do anything wron you have nothing to worry about" crowd.
 
2012-06-20 11:13:40 AM

DamnYankees: I'm not aware of any right at all to anonymous speech.


Me neither, but Common Sense and the Federalist Papers were privately funded, anonymously published materials intended to influence the United States political system.

I hate the Citizens United ruling and what it's done to elections in our country, but I can't as of yet figure out why what corporations are trying to do is evil, while not condemning the practices of some of our founders.
 
2012-06-20 11:15:09 AM
Everyone should have the freedom to give a billion dollars to a SuperPAC. Sock it, lebs.

www.gotomycodes.com
 
2012-06-20 11:15:36 AM
Target learned a hard lesson when they got exposed as supporting a lot of nasty rightwing organizations.

Exposure like that is ruinous for them, as it exposes them as just another bottom line obsessed entity, and they have spent a ton of marketing cash on making themselves seem "nice".

These people took note. They don't like light. They want to glad hand everyone while stabbing them in the back in secret.
 
2012-06-20 11:15:56 AM
Donate millions to a SuperPAC? Anonymity protected.
Sign a petition? Publicly distribute name and address.
 
2012-06-20 11:17:12 AM
And yet Priorities USA - the group modeled after Crossroads but which supports the president doesn't have too nor do the Dems/Libs want them to.
 
2012-06-20 11:17:12 AM

DamnYankees: I'm not aware of any right at all to anonymous speech.


Exactly. We have a right to free speech, but we also have to take responsibility for that free speech. Freedom of expression with responsibility or accountability is basically 4chan.
 
2012-06-20 11:19:24 AM
Both sides are bad, amiright?
 
2012-06-20 11:19:26 AM

nmrsnr: I hate the Citizens United ruling and what it's done to elections in our country, but I can't as of yet figure out why what corporations are trying to do is evil, while not condemning the practices of some of our founders.


The ability to print pamphlets is a tad different from the ability to blanket the public airwaves with propaganda.
 
2012-06-20 11:19:27 AM
I hate my home state for electing this blatant whore so much. If the federal government ever decides to pre-emptively strike Kentucky to re-launch the Civil War, I won't be too torn up about it.

/just keep Louisville intact, guys
 
2012-06-20 11:19:34 AM
Let's not forget that Unions are SuperPACS too.
 
2012-06-20 11:19:47 AM
You have the right to be as crooked or inept as the politicians you oppose, and you have the right to drop tons of money towards the politicians you support. You don't have the right for people not to know about the money, or eventually look into your past and rip you apart, much like the commercials you finance about your rivals.
 
2012-06-20 11:21:23 AM

HMS_Blinkin: DamnYankees: I'm not aware of any right at all to anonymous speech.

Exactly. We have a right to free speech, but we also have to take responsibility for that free speech. Freedom of expression with responsibility or accountability is basically 4chan.


Without dammit. Freedom of expression without responsibility or accountability = 4chan.
 
2012-06-20 11:21:57 AM

ferretman: And yet Priorities USA - the group modeled after Crossroads but which supports the president doesn't have too nor do the Dems/Libs want them to.


The Obaam campaign sued crossroads to force it to release its donor list, and any court ruling that forced Crossroads to identify donors would also apply to Priorities. The Obamacampaign wants disclosure, but not unilateral disarmament.

The more you know....
 
2012-06-20 11:22:19 AM
I've lost count - are they quadrupling down, or quintupling down at this point?
 
2012-06-20 11:22:46 AM

ferretman: And yet Priorities USA - the group modeled after Crossroads but which supports the president doesn't have too nor do the Dems/Libs want them to.


I do. And based on the tone here, I'd say I'm not alone.

But keep on raging if that makes you happy!
 
2012-06-20 11:23:34 AM
Do I mind that millions are spent on political campaigns? Eh, a little.

Do I mind that assholes who fear retaliation for supporting bigots, misogynists, racists and more and want to donate anonymously? Yes. If you ostensibly support someone enough to drop hundreds of thousands, if not millions, into their warchest, you damned well better be identified.
 
2012-06-20 11:24:16 AM
He says he's gotten negative press, received unsavory emails and lost customers.

Oh, so you mean supporting a contemptable piece of human garbage might actually have consequences? Who would have thought??
 
2012-06-20 11:27:12 AM

TofuTheAlmighty: The ability to print pamphlets is a tad different from the ability to blanket the public airwaves with propaganda.


It's only a difference of scale, not of kind.
 
2012-06-20 11:27:17 AM
I assure you that I am playing the tiniest violin right now.
 
2012-06-20 11:28:28 AM
Its bad enough to look at the people who DO go public with their support: Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Sarah Jessica Parker.

*shudder*
 
2012-06-20 11:30:58 AM
I don't remember if it's the city or the state, but New York instituted a ban on public displays while wearing masks long ago. I think it was to hinder the Klan.

The FCC has required that all sponsoring parties behind a television production be named. The DEA got in trouble for sponsoring "drug message" episodes in the 90's but failing to put their name on the credits.

I don't know how the clowns are calling the shots these days, but the freedom came about in a time of printing presses and street corner speakers. There was room for anonymity from the beginning. But maybe, in political campaign speech, we need to fess up to who is paying for an advertisement. If nothing else, to keep people from screwing with spoilers.

I'm going to refrain for laying out the plan, but anonymous backers for third party (spoiler) candidates for congress could give you a true one party government, and that's what they've been wanting.
 
2012-06-20 11:31:14 AM

nmrsnr: DamnYankees: I'm not aware of any right at all to anonymous speech.

Me neither, but Common Sense and the Federalist Papers were privately funded, anonymously published materials intended to influence the United States political system.

I hate the Citizens United ruling and what it's done to elections in our country, but I can't as of yet figure out why what corporations are trying to do is evil, while not condemning the practices of some of our founders.


I dont understand this parallel.
 
2012-06-20 11:32:16 AM

vernonFL: I'm not aware of too many things. I know what I know if you know what I mean.

/Mitch McConnell is a black belt douchebag and I hope he gets shell cancer.


that coffee was expensive
 
2012-06-20 11:33:44 AM

nmrsnr: It's only a difference of scale, not of kind.


Not true. Pamphleteering was limited only by the amount of paper that could be pressed. The airwaves are a commodity much more limited, expensive, and exclusive.
 
2012-06-20 11:33:50 AM

SurfaceTension: I think the question nobody is really asking is...why would these people WANT to remain anonymous? What do they have to hide? Why not be proud of the people, issues, and causes you support with your abundance?


I'll take - Things a dictator would say - for $1,000.
 
2012-06-20 11:34:18 AM
Still whining about the loss of a fund raising advantage? Must be a day that ends in Y.

As soon as the liberal politicians get off the big money teats they've been feeding off of for years and years let me know, until then you're a hypocrite for complaining about Citizens United.
 
2012-06-20 11:36:48 AM

MugzyBrown: SurfaceTension: I think the question nobody is really asking is...why would these people WANT to remain anonymous? What do they have to hide? Why not be proud of the people, issues, and causes you support with your abundance?

I'll take - Things a dictator would say - for $1,000.


lolwut?
 
2012-06-20 11:38:37 AM

nmrsnr: DamnYankees: I'm not aware of any right at all to anonymous speech.

Me neither, but Common Sense and the Federalist Papers were privately funded, anonymously published materials intended to influence the United States political system.

I hate the Citizens United ruling and what it's done to elections in our country, but I can't as of yet figure out why what corporations are trying to do is evil, while not condemning the practices of some of our founders.


"Evil" is perhaps the wrong word. The thing that bothers me is that corporations are fundamentally amoral.
 
2012-06-20 11:41:12 AM
Reminds me of the Mormons who didn't like that people retaliated for their efforts to kill gay unions in Cali.

You want to fark with the politics that affect my life? Be prepared for my reaction. Anything less is dictatorial.
 
2012-06-20 11:42:45 AM
One of the reasons, I'm becoming slowly convinced that I have been involuntarily jumping between alternate universes the last couple of years is because I SWEAR, pre-Citizen's United That the GOP talking point was that campaign finance regulation was bad an unconstitutional and that instead we should allow unlimited contributions so long as we had instant and full disclosure of the donors and how much they gave

Sunshine, the free market and informed voters, they argued passionately, were all that was needed to ensure our elections were free and fair.

Now clearly that could not have happened in this universe, or the GOP by the terms of thier own argument would now be publicly arguing for unfair elections.
 
2012-06-20 11:43:07 AM
Whatever happened to GOP support for the free market? If I discover that my favorite restaurant is giving donations to lobby for gay marriage rights, then I can vote with my dollars and eat elsewhere. How dare they demand that I unwittingly support things I oppose by allowing these cowardly corporations to hide their speech?
 
2012-06-20 11:44:13 AM
I guess it's time to totally go back to the Gilded Age with campaign finance. No limits, no reporting, money can be taken from anyone, etc. What could possibly go wrong?
 
2012-06-20 11:44:53 AM

nmrsnr: TofuTheAlmighty: The ability to print pamphlets is a tad different from the ability to blanket the public airwaves with propaganda.

It's only a difference of scale, not of kind.


Yep, these same anonymous super PAC donors are just like that guy who said "give me liberty or give me death," but made sure the British never found out who he was. Or maybe those super PAC donors are the same as all those guys who signed the declaration of independence with "x"s because they didn't want King George to know who they were. Or maybe more like that anonymous gentleman who warned the American militia that the British were coming.

It's not about the propaganda, its about the anonymity. These assholes need to have the courage to publicly take responsibility for the things they do in our national public life.
 
2012-06-20 11:45:53 AM
I believe in the right of free speech. I even heavily endorse anonymous free speech.

But we have ALWAYS had limits on material campaign contributions in the modern political era. ALWAYS. Because we know that if people could donate unlimited amounts of money it would make it even easier to buy and sell politicans.

SuperPACs and SuperPAC 501c4 are nothing more than egregious loopholes that allow people to donate unlimited amounts of money to something that is only in the barest sense "technically not" a politician's campaign.

This isn't anonymous free speech. This is vast reserves of dollars that is used to buy TV commercials containing the party's speech, not the individual donor's speech. The commercials don't say "Wal-Mart endorses Mitt Romney." How are the donors "speaking" if all traces of them are scrubbed away, except for the cash?

These loopholes, further push of them, and defense of them by the republican party are terrifying. We're essentially throwing out all campaign finance reform, in a time when wealth disparity is growing.

This isn't about speech, if you support Mitt Romney, make your own damn commercial. But the fact that these wealthy donors and corporations fear being exposed for supporting their "speech" because of public backlash shows how nefarious they even view themselves.
 
2012-06-20 11:46:35 AM

qorkfiend: lolwut?


Let's pretend the sitting president is somebody whose politics I disagree with. Also the president is somebody Nixonian, paranoid, spiteful. I know this is some way out there stuff.

Let's say my company does a lot of business with the government.

Could you now see why I wouldn't want my name linked to being a big advertiser against the sitting president?

Now imagine if the president was a step beyond Nixonian and may be prone to eliminating their rivals.

I prefer to have the powers of government limited so that if somebody who's a real ass gets into power, they can do the least amount of harm.
 
2012-06-20 11:49:11 AM

MugzyBrown: qorkfiend: lolwut?

Let's pretend the sitting president is somebody whose politics I disagree with. Also the president is somebody Nixonian, paranoid, spiteful. I know this is some way out there stuff.

Let's say my company does a lot of business with the government.

Could you now see why I wouldn't want my name linked to being a big advertiser against the sitting president?

Now imagine if the president was a step beyond Nixonian and may be prone to eliminating their rivals.

I prefer to have the powers of government limited so that if somebody who's a real ass gets into power, they can do the least amount of harm.


I've highlighted the actual operative dictatorial part, which isn't public disclosure of campaign donations.
 
2012-06-20 11:52:22 AM

HAMMERTOE: Let's not forget that Unions are SuperPACS too.



So farking what?
 
2012-06-20 11:52:33 AM

DamnYankees: nmrsnr: DamnYankees: I'm not aware of any right at all to anonymous speech.

Me neither, but Common Sense and the Federalist Papers were privately funded, anonymously published materials intended to influence the United States political system.

I hate the Citizens United ruling and what it's done to elections in our country, but I can't as of yet figure out why what corporations are trying to do is evil, while not condemning the practices of some of our founders.

I dont understand this parallel.


We are currently in the process of condemning private individuals for attempting to anonymously publish and distribute materials in order to influence our political system and policy. In our nations history, we hold as icons and founding fathers who were private individuals who acted to anonymously publish and distribute materials in order to influence our political system.

Why is one acceptable (or was it? Should Thomas Payne and Alexander Hamliton been forced by law to publish under their real names?) while the other has a large push back (by myself included) to make such practices illegal?

TofuTheAlmighty: nmrsnr: It's only a difference of scale, not of kind.

Not true. Pamphleteering was limited only by the amount of paper that could be pressed. The airwaves are a commodity much more limited, expensive, and exclusive.


So you would not have problems if they didn't buy air time, but paid for mass mailings, push polling, robo-calls, and pamphleteering?

If so you have an argument, but I think most peoples' problem comes with the anonymity of the messenger, not the venue of the message.
 
2012-06-20 11:53:42 AM

qorkfiend: I've highlighted the actual operative dictatorial part, which isn't public disclosure of campaign donations.


How so?

If there was a real bastard in power, would you want your name on a list of donors to the opposition party?
 
2012-06-20 11:54:11 AM

randomjsa: Still whining about the loss of a fund raising advantage? Must be a day that ends in Y.

As soon as the liberal politicians get off the big money teats they've been feeding off of for years and years let me know, until then you're a hypocrite for complaining about Citizens United.



Hey farktard. They can give all the money they want. I just want to know who's giving it.
 
Displayed 50 of 153 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report