Comments on: Political Speech Not as Free as You Think

By: Pat

Pat — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:33:02 +0000

Free speech is a right which no dictatorship (left or right) can tolerate; hence Nazi book burnings, Sharia law, disruptions and threats to disrupt by leftist thugs on campuses, et al.

And it’s also interesting how blithely Republican leaders treat this right – as in HW Bush’s refusal to provide protection for booksellers of Rushdie’s novel, or in McCain-Feingold.

McCain’s principal argument for his grotesque censorship bill was that we need to prevent the buying of politicians. But, like all steps toward dictatorship, that was just a smokescreen.

To get the money out of politics, get the politicians out of money-making. Completely separate the government from the economy and return to the limited constitutional republican form of government whose sole purpose is to protect individual rights.

Once minds and markets are free, politicians won’t be worth buying.

By: aloysiusmiller

aloysiusmiller — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:06:34 +0000

Nina,

You’re absolutely correct. But there is a right to freedom of speech. Funny that Paul in NJ prefers the right they don’t have to the right we do have.

By: aloysiusmiller

aloysiusmiller — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:05:06 +0000

Paul in NJ,

I am no troll. But you must be a bureaucrat. Your moniker “in NJ” says it all.

You want to be able to make and enforce policy but with no responsibility or consequences. The shield of anonymity that the press extends to the bureaucracy keeps them in business violating our rights. What would you rather have: no first amendment rights or an exposed and shamed bureaucracy?

By: schmuck

schmuck — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:35:30 +0000

If the FEC is interested in stuff like that, how about the casino industry being in the tank for Obama?

I was in Las Vegas recently and every Casino I went into had signs and even people wearing vest emblazoned with “Change”.

An obvious attempt to subvert election laws.

By: nina

nina — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:04:26 +0000

“Guess there’s no right to privacy in your version of the Constitution.
”

Paul in NJ, perhaps you could point me to that clause in the Constitution – I can’t seem to find it either.

By: Javelin

Javelin — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:35:59 +0000

Let’s not forget how our venerated leader had the Secret Service arrest and toss out his opponent’s supporters from his campaign rallies.

By: Jack Lohman

Jack Lohman — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:14:14 +0000

I don’t want transparency. I don’t want to “know” who’s bribing my politician, I don’t want him bribed at all. Full public funding of campaigns are working beautifully in Arizona and Maine. And in Arizona they don’t even have the taxpayers pay the bill, they add a surcharge to criminal fines.

It works. Taxpayer money is no longer spent for special interest benefit, it’s spent on public need. And the politicians didn’t implement it to protect their job, they voters forced it through binding referendum.

See http://www.wicleanelections.org

By: cubanbob

cubanbob — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:06:52 +0000

The more ‘Campaign spending reform’ laws are passed, the worse the candidates become. If the message or messenger stinks, no amount of money will make a difference. Somehow all these ‘reforms’ always seem to work for the incumbents favors. Abolish the FEC and let any citizen with in full possession of their civil rights contribute any amount they wish to any candidate they wish to publicly. No anonymous PAC or 527 veils. List each donor by name,profession and city and state. No coerced contributions from union members. The more elaborate the ‘reform’, the more likely the corruption and subterfuge.

By: Jack Lohman

Jack Lohman — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:19:21 +0000

There is absolutely no reason why lobbyists should not be able to lobby politicians to get across their point of view. The problem comes when they lobby with cash in hand. That’s payola and bribery. It’s not the illegal bribery that is the problem, it is the legal contributions that are the problem. That must stop.

If politicians are to be beholden to their funders, I want those funders to be the taxpayers. And at $10 per taxpayer per year it would be a bargain. It would eliminate $3000 per taxpayer per year in government giveaways and reduce taxes in the process.

And it’s constitutional because it is voluntary (see http://tinyurl.com/5aadhf ) and actually increases speech and debate by providing all candidates with sufficient funds to run a campaign.

Jack Lohman
http://moneyedpoliticians.net

By: August 19th Link Roundup | THE HOT JOINTS

August 19th Link Roundup | THE HOT JOINTS — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:44:43 +0000

[...] Political speech not that free anymore? [...]