Comments on: Mourning the Loss of Free Speech Through November 7, 2006

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:58:48 +0000

For those Rush listeners, on (Oct 25th, 2006), was his last diatribe a violation of McCain-Feingold?

By: Bloggermouth

Bloggermouth — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:13:53 +0000

Those in power, jealously guard their power. When will someone address REAL issues?

By: Neolibertarian

Neolibertarian — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:23:15 +0000

Campaign Finance Strikes Again

Bringing an idea to its natural conclusion, the California Democrats are pissed off that Arnold was a guest f…

By: Hamilton

Hamilton — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:20:52 +0000

Ok, so bloggers should unite and blacklist everybody who voted for this silly act? That is one idea.

Actually, the blogosphere and sites such as YouTube may really shine in this period of absence of fallacious television and radio ads.

60 days of digital empowerment!

By: neil

neil — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:41:10 +0000

Why would someone say that about "bush"? Do they know him? Do they believe the "cut and slice media"? Well I just think that if everyone went VEGAN we'd all see a little more clearly.

PARADE OF DAYS : mother earth///healing ways

By: Noumenon

Noumenon — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 04:27:49 +0000

Markm: Oh, I see. Basically the NRA either has to struggle by with no money from the Ford Foundation or whoever, or it can't buy any ads. I was thinking of ads funded *exclusively* by corporations or labor unions.

I don't have enough money to buy a TV ad by myself, but then again I don't have enough power to get a corporation to fund my ad either. I was thinking you could get that kind of money by joining together by other people in your church organization, but that would make them lose their nonprofit status.

527s seem like a good thing from this perspective -- all individual money, say what you want. But I know they're next on the chopping block.

So I guess you need to sue somebody or fund a documentary to get your claim in in the last sixty days...

By: markm

markm — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:52:39 +0000

Noumenon: Are you rich enough to buy a TV ad all by yourself? If so, you can, but if you want to split the costs with a few friends, you’ll find it very onerous to stay within the law. It didn’t stop George Soros from spending many millions on political ads, but the NRA cannot directly buy ads naming candidates.

By: Noumenon

Noumenon — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:53:52 +0000

Hey, I just looked up McCain-Feingold in Wikipedia and it doesn't say I'm not allowed to criticize incumbents on TV. It says corporations can't, and that I have to disclose my sources of funding for my ads. Is the article incomplete?

"# A ban on supposedly non-partisan "issue ads" funded by soft money from corporations and labor unions - those referring to candidates for federal election without expressly advocating their election or defeat -- in the 60 days prior to a general election, or 30 days prior to a primary election.
# Disclosure of sources of finance for "electioneering communications" in excess of $10,000 per year."

By: JT Barrie

JT Barrie — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:54:55 +0000

Our campaign reform laws say a lot about political campaigns – mostly between the bobbsey twin parties. However, if a nonprofit or taxpayer funded entity wishes to openly campaign for a particular cause using taxpayer monies it’s perfectly legal – as long as people don’t vote on that issue during that election cycle. The fact that political propaganda influences legislation pending or bobbsey twin candidates is irrelevant. I seriously doubt that the would legislate against rants on issues. Especially since they take taxpayer dollars for promulgation of the dangerous drugs mythology in classrooms and “public service” drug propaganda. They also mandate patriotism and include propaganda in public school history lessons with taxpayer monies. They couldn’t restrict churches and individuals and still allow this? Or could they?

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:29:46 +0000

Get it? ...what's that shrimplate, that you try to invalidate ideas by calling someone names?
To each his own, however, it's not relevant for the topic at hand.

As much as I'd like to make fun of non-incumbent politicians, I thought these FEC laws only applied to those running for office (or at least incumbents).

I would imagine Coyote would use some tact and be constructive by backing a local Libertarian candidate.