Heather slaps the entire Bh.tv community. BAN HER. But seriously ... This diavlog was useful. Thanks to Heather for her fancy expertise and Mark for at least being up to asking good questions, especially on such short notice.

Kennedy "The only thing that constitutes corruption is quid quo pro." Anything else is just opinion. but then so is whether or not something is quid quo pro unless it's literally behind the barn with a wad of money and a tape recorder.

Or, it could be that they respect the original meaning of "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...", which the two commentators admit in the end money is equal to. So the difference is that those who think the SC got this right is we want everyone to have the right to free speech, whether they agree with us or not.

Quoting Brn: Or, it could be that they respect the original meaning of "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...", which the two commentators admit in the end money is equal to.

So the difference is that those who think the SC got this right is we want everyone to have the right to free speech, whether they agree with us or not.

You really never know who will be the ones to advocate banning speech, films, pamphlets books etc. Patterico made a pretty good case back in 2004 when the FEC's advisory counsel told the commision that the McCain-Feingold law prevents Michael Moore from advertising his film “Fahrenheit 9/11″ after July 30, 2004. I would also recommend everyone read The Myth Of Campaign Finance Reform from Bradley A Smith: "The case addressed the question of whether federal campaign-finance law limits the right of the activist group Citizens United to distribute a hackneyed political documentary entitled Hillary: The Movie. The details involved an arcane provision of the law, and most observers expected a limited decision that would make little news and not much practical difference in how campaigns are

Quoting Brn: Or, it could be that they respect the original meaning of "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...", which the two commentators admit in the end money is equal to.

So the difference is that those who think the SC got this right is we want everyone to have the right to free speech, whether they agree with us or not.

I like the idea of the first amendment. The problem is, of course, that certain people with more power than others seem to be able to access more free speech than others. Taken to an hysterical extreme to some people it looks like this.
In a Special Comment, Countdown’s Keith Olbermann envisions a future United States in which today's Supreme Court ruling permitting unbridled corporate campaign spending purchase all the power greed can afford. Many people want us to believe we live in unprecedented, dangerous and potentially catastrophic times. I think someone on this forum recently coined the name 'fearism' for this phenomenon. True or not we've seen some awfully scary things recently in the behavior of our banks, corporations and Congress. It's easy to be afraid and to want tight restrictions.
Liberty is not for the weak of heart.

Quoting Brn: Or, it could be that they respect the original meaning of "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...", which the two commentators admit in the end money is equal to.

So the difference is that those who think the SC got this right is we want everyone to have the right to free speech, whether they agree with us or not.

First, you might read this, to have a better sense of where I stand on the issue of money, and restrictions on it, in politics. Second, my point is not about "respecting free speech." Pretty much all of us do, pretty much all of the time, and what we fight about are the edge cases. My point, in the comment to which you responded, is that Scalia, Roberts, etc., and their supporters, are annoying as hell when genuflecting before "precedent" and "intent" only when it suits them. If they want push a conservative (according to their definition) agenda, and pick and choose when to follow precedent and when to decide (as I also believe) that the Constitution and the law are living things that must be adapted to changing realities, fine, great. Do that. Just spare me the false pieties, is all

Quoting badhatharry: Kennedy "The only thing that constitutes corruption is quid quo pro."

Anything else is just opinion.

but then so is whether or not something is quid quo pro unless it's literally behind the barn with a wad of money and a tape recorder.

In this case, I'm with you on the "just opinion" view. Corruption is like pornography -- hard to define, except in the extreme, but easy to identify when you see it.

So let me get this straight: A government that is powerful enough to shut up someone they don't like, no matter how rich and powerful, is somehow NOT going to be able to shut up the poor and powerless? Would it be OK with you if we limited the amount of money that a newspaper could spend, in order to even out things with smaller newspapers? Or limit the amount of money that one of the major networks can spend?

My point was that you were attacking this decision because the judges weren't following "original intent", when pretty clearly they were.

Which is not to say that they, like all of us, can be hypocrites frequently.

Quoting Brn: So let me get this straight: A government that is powerful enough to shut up someone they don't like, no matter how rich and powerful, is somehow NOT going to be able to shut up the poor and powerless?

Would it be OK with you if we limited the amount of money that a newspaper could spend, in order to even out things with smaller newspapers? Or limit the amount of money that one of the major networks can spend?

Not sure who you are addressing or what your first question actually means. As far as limiting the money newspapers or major networks spend.....I guess it would depend on the circumstance, but I can't think of one in which that would be OK with me. OOOOOPS! so now I think I know what you mean and you are right. If a government is able to shut up a corporation it is certainly possible for them to shut just about anyone up.

As they say at the end, instead of all our futile and convoluted efforts to level down, when you can't stop water or money flowing downstream toward sources it wants to move to, what we need to do is level up. Its very simple really--right now politicians have no choice but to serve two masters, people and organizations who provide them the money they need to run campaigns or run supportive ads (or don't run critical ads or support their opponents), and the voters. Just think about it--when you go to work, its generally not hard to get you to do what your employer wants, at least better than whatever alternative the employer can find, because you have one employer and no conflict of interest, and he won't pay you anymore if you don't do what he pays you to do. But to gain and hold office, the set of people you have to try to please involves more actors. If we simplify it and say that we the people will provide you not only the salary that comes with the job, but also the

Quoting Brn: My point was that you were attacking this decision because the judges weren't following "original intent", when pretty clearly they were.

No, they weren't. In this case, as in others, they cherry-pick when they want to all be original intenty and when they don't. LGM blogger and law prof Paul Campos has a post you ought to read in full. Here are the most relevant parts to this dispute.

[...]

Three aspects of the decision are particularly noteworthy. First, Chief Justice John Roberts, who was praised to the skies at the time of his confirmation hearings for his supposedly “minimalist” approach to judging, goes out of his way to demolish several decades worth of congressional work to do something about the corrupting influence of money on politics.

[...]

Justice Antonin Scalia’s concurrence provides an even more morbidly amusing exercise in judicial gymnastics. After all, one would think a genuine commitment to applying the original meaning of the Constitution to contemporary cases poses a serious problem to someone who wants to find that the document forbids Congress from banning direct campaign contributions by corporations.

It’s difficult to express how bizarre the framers

So then your belief is that the original intent of "Congress shall make no law..." was really more like "Congress can make laws abridging free speech, if it serves a good purpose."

Quoting Brn: So then your belief is that the original intent of "Congress shall make no law..." was really more like "Congress can make laws abridging free speech, if it serves a good purpose."

Are you serious? That's really your response, based on your best judgment of the point I have been trying to make? You know, I'll be the first to admit I could do a better job of expressing myself clearly. But I'm not taking all the responsibility for this one. I'm going to write this off as you looking to bicker off on a tangent, because you think acknowledging someone else's point "shows weakness" or some other equally stupid reason.

You are right, that was too glib and unfair. I apologize. My point was only that it is unfair to criticize Roberts and the others, in this case, for being hypocrites. Yes, they went against precedents, but ones that were, it seems to me and many others, in clear violation of the plain meaning of the first amendment. Come back to me when they do something like strike down rent control for violating the right to privacy or something and I'll be on your side 100%.

Quoting Brn: [...]

Fair enough.

Wow two supporter of Campaign finance regulation debate why overturning it is bad.
Mark if there were many reasons for the court to rule that the video was not covered under McCain-Feingold why did the DC District Court rule that Citizens United would be barred from advertising its film.
BTW how do progressives address this?

During the course of oral argument on this case in October in the Supreme Court, one of the FEC’s lawyers replied to a question from Justice Antonin Scalia to the effect that the FEC could ban books if they were paid for by corporations, labor unions, or advocacy groups. This highly un-American statement in the Supreme Court–that the federal government can ban books–infuriated a few of the justices.

I also find it funny that they started about the court outrageously was overreaching/overturning recent rulings/Precedent and then described it as the last nail in the coffin.

Good diavlog. Useful. My respect for the Supreme Court is greatly increased by this decision.

Or, it could be that they respect the original meaning of "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...", which the two commentators admit in the end money is equal to.

But that's assuming that the framers agree with John Roberts that a corporation is equal to a person and that money is equal to speech.

I woke up to this Will Wilkinson post on FB: http://www.facebook.com/ajax/share_d...d=2347471856&p[]=851540116&p[]=288938907078 ...and a pleasant dialogue ensued. Pay particular attention to the Tim Lee post link, and the Ken Fisher rebuttals. Props to Wilkinson. On this good diavlog - thanks Schmitt and Gerken: 1. I'm angry about this decision, but generally I think, based on the FB debate and this thread, that I might have a little more faith, that Congress can find the right balance of legislation in relevant areas, like campaign finance, to interpret this decision. SCOTUS is the political arm of the judiciary, not the last word in solomonic virtue. 2. The Internet creates niches, so money only needs to energize a base, to affect races, as happened in Mass. and NJ. I like Gerken's emphasis on empowering people, not stripping rights.

From Justice Kennedy: "When word concerning the plot of the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington reached the circles of Government, some officials sought, by persuasion, to discourage its distribution. Under Austin, though, officials could have done more than discourage its distribution—they could have banned the film. After all, it, like Hillary, was speech funded by a corporation that was critical of Members of Congress. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington may be fiction and caricature; but fiction and caricature can be a powerful force. Modern day movies, television comedies, or skits onYoutube.com might portray public officials or public policies in unflattering ways. Yet if a covered transmission during the blackout period creates the background for candidate endorsement or opposition, a felony occurs solely because a corporation, other than an exempt media corporation, has made the “purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value” in order to engage in political speech. Speech would be suppressed in the realm where its necessity is most evident: in the public dialogue preceding a real election. Governments are often hostile to speech, but under our law and our tradition it seems stranger than fiction for our Government to make this political speech

The more proponents try to rehash these Kennedy red herrings and post-hoc justifications, it just punctuates how far SCOTUS has overreached. Your, and SCOTUS' cynical contempt for real people is manifest. We can quibble, but at the end of the day, I accept the vote. I do not twist words, and then call it scholarship. Again, SCOTUS is a political organ, not Solomon when the right subset of "people"...errr, money...ummm, justices(?) is distributed to reach a majority. http://themoderatevoice.com/60262/th...electionworld/

Hint, hint....hint, hint....

I don't usually like Brooks' lite versions of conservative talking points, but he manages to pull out something special here:

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I think it is a bad decision. I do -- I think it will have a poisonous effect on political atmosphere, but for different reasons than most people that I have read and heard from.

First, I'm not convinced it will have a -- it will totally change the landscape, because I'm not convinced a lot of corporations are going to want to have a political profile.

JIM LEHRER: Why not?

DAVID BROOKS: Because you are a corporation. You want to sell everybody.

JIM LEHRER: OK.

DAVID BROOKS: And, so, why stick your neck out?

But I do think it will have this effect. What do corporations, when they go to Washington, what do they want? One, they want subsidies from Washington. Two, they want to crush small businesses who are hoping to compete with them by erecting regulatory hurdles.

So, I think they will use that money to try to essentially hurt small business, who don't have lobbyists, don't have money to spend. And I think both of those are very negative effects on the country.

I do not necessarily think it is great for the Republican Party and terrible for the Democratic Party, because when you look

I have not had time to read the opinions. Something poorly explored is the influence of American subsidiaries of Foreign corporations. As China gains influence, it is not clear why they will not be able to purchase elections. It is also not clear that al-Quaeda cannot incorporate and seek to open US Subsidiaries wherein Sharia law is effectively being enforced, first in the workplace, and next in a small community they locate in -- eventually gaining political traction in the city, state and national government. In other words, does the first amendment trump all other considerations in this regard? I think it is the stupidest decision since Bush v. Gore, but then, I haven't yet read it. Of course, I am being facetious in some of my hypotheticals above. Let your minds create. My take is that this decision is incredibly poorly thought out.

Yep, two deep thinkers like David Brooks and Mark Shields (Obama voters both) to give us a grade school analysis of evil corporations. It will be interesting to see the evil effects of this corporate money when we run out of campaign volunteers (Shields' claim) in the next election. Democrats may have less volunteers the next time around but if they want to blame anyone Obama, Pelosi and Reid are a good start For the first time in years, I'm interested to see the State Of The Union message. If Obama's speech in Ohio this week is any indication, instead of waking up and smelling the coffee, it looks as though he's going to be doubling down on "the last eight years", "special interests", "partisan politics" sort of 'don't blame me, it's everyone else's fault, especially Bush's' tripe that is turning off more and more Americans, esp the ones who aren't looking for a handout: "Now, we've gotten pretty far down the road, but I have to admit, we've run into a bit of a buzzsaw along the way," Obama said. "The long process of getting things done runs headlong into the special interests, their armies of

Quoting Baltimoron: I don't usually like Brooks' lite versions of conservative talking points, but he manages to pull out something special here:

I don't like him much either, but probably for different reasons than you. Brooks says this:But I do think it will have this effect. What do corporations, when they go to Washington, what do they want? One, they want subsidies from Washington. Two, they want to crush small businesses who are hoping to compete with them by erecting regulatory hurdles.
I'm sorry but this is just too conspiracy theory for anyone to swallow. One minute, corporations are trying to get rid of regulations so that they can do their dastardly deeds with no infringement from government and the next they are trying to erect regulatory hurdles in order to crush small business. Busy boys, those evil corporations! It's surprising they can find the time to make all those products which are designed to kill us.

I listened to the oral arguments in the SCOTUS case yesterday. The thing that came up time and again was the paternalistic notion that voters need to be protected from some kinds of speech. In this case the judges 5 to 4 rejected this notion.
The thing that people who are excoriating this decision leave out of the equation is the voter. Presumably, voters will know if a big corporation is supporting a candidate and take that into their voting decision. In an interview following the arguments it was brought up that money isn't always the deciding factor, as in the case of John Corsine's run for governor.
If you believe what some say, the corporations will now be able to buy elections. I say, it is up to the voters to keep themselves informed and the candidates to point out who is supporting who.
And as far as Scalia tromping on precedent...I doubt he ever made the claim that he would uphold what he considered to be bad precedent.

Quoting badhatharry: I listened to the oral arguments in the SCOTUS case yesterday. The thing that came up time and again was the paternalistic notion that voters need to be protected from some kinds of speech. In this case the judges 5 to 4 rejected this notion.
The thing that people who are excoriating this decision leave out of the equation is the voter. Presumably, voters will know if a big corporation is supporting a candidate and take that into their voting decision. In an interview following the arguments it was brought up that money isn't always the deciding factor, as in the case of John Corsine's run for governor.
If you believe what some say, the corporations will now be able to buy elections. I say, it is up to the voters to keep themselves informed and the candidates to point out who is supporting who.
And as far as Scalia tromping on precedent...I doubt he ever made the claim that he would uphold what he considered to be bad precedent.

And isn't it logical to assume that after a certain point, it doesn't matter how much money is in play, if

Quoting look: And isn't it logical to assume that after a certain point, it doesn't matter how much money is in play, if it's equal on both sides? Last election was unfair with Obama getting massive funds via questionable credit card donations(?) and buying unlimited air time, to the point he had his own channel running 24/7, or something like it. And this was after he reneged on his campaign finance pledge.

I heard about his reneging on his campaign finance plan. I think McCain was the one who was chagrined because he didn't have the kind of funding Obama had. I guess that only goes to show that most attempts to subvert and guide the process will result in unintended consequences.
The thing that is most inspiring to me is that in the end, the voters are
/should be in charge. But we need to remain informed and engaged.

Quoting badhatharry: The thing that is most inspiring to me is that in the end, the voters are
/should be in charge. But we need to remain informed and engaged.

What if "we" are not?

Quoting Unit: What if "we" are not?

Exactly. And I question the validity of this presumption as well:

Quoting badhatharry: Presumably, voters will know if a big corporation is supporting a candidate and take that into their voting decision.

The thing that is most inspiring to me is that in the end, the voters are
/should be in charge. But we need to remain informed and engaged.

If we had an informed electorate to begin with all political advertising would be superfluous, wouldn't it? I consider myself fairly well informed and I never look at political ads. I mute them on television, recycle them unopened when they come in the mail, and ignore them in every other medium. Ads, almost by definition, are designed for people who are poorly informed and susceptible to facile manipulation. So saying, "Well, if you don't like billion dollar ad campaigns by Exxon-Mobile saying, 'Vote for Sarah Palin ', just ignore them" is to miss the point. Money from corporations (or unions) going into campaigns corrupts the process in because $$$ is effective. The corruption happens in three main ways: 1) the election itself is bought; 2) the winner (and all prospective candidates) are beholden to the buyer; 3) elected officials are in thrall to perpetual fundraising. It's a very anti-democratic process, and to promote it in the name of free speech is like promoting crack cocaine in the name of free trade.

Quoting Wonderment: If we had an informed electorate to begin with all political advertising would be superfluous, wouldn't it?

I consider myself fairly well informed and I never look at political ads. I mute them on television, recycle them unopened when they come in the mail, and ignore them in every other medium.

Ads, almost by definition, are designed for people who are poorly informed and susceptible to facile manipulation.

So saying, "Well, if you don't like billion dollar ad campaigns by Exxon-Mobile saying, 'Vote for Sarah Palin ', just ignore them" is to miss the point.

Money from corporations (or unions) going into campaigns corrupts the process in because $$$ is effective. The corruption happens in three main ways: 1) the election itself is bought; 2) the winner (and all prospective candidates) are beholden to the buyer; 3) elected officials are in thrall to perpetual fundraising.

It's a very anti-democratic process, and to promote it in the name of free speech is like promoting crack cocaine in the name of free trade.

I think people who want crack cocaine should be allowed to buy it.

Quoting Wonderment: [...]

Excellent post.

Quoting bjkeefe: Exactly.

And I question the validity of this presumption as well:

Agreed, but McCain-Feingold is not the solution either, and has its own very unpleasant side-consequences.

Quoting Unit: Agreed, but McCain-Feingold is not the solution either, and has its own very unpleasant side-consequences.

Before anything else, so that you know where I'm coming from on this issue in general, I'll refer you to this, if you haven't already seen it. That said, I do think there is a real problem with people's level of awareness about politics, politicians, and their keepers. I also think there is a real problem with how effective advertising is, particularly among those who can't or won't make the effort to better inform themselves. I don't know the details of McCain-Feingold very well. I'd be interested to hear from you some specifics about the "side-consequences."

Quoting bjkeefe: Exactly.

And I question the validity of this presumption as well:

The justices, with only Thomas in dissent, did uphold McCain-Feingold requirements that anyone spending money on political ads must disclose the names of contributors. The justices filed five separate opinions totaling 176 pages.

Quoting Unit: What if "we" are not?

Well then"we" get the government we deserve. I think little Tommy Jefferson said that.
If we don't want to stay informed we can either have big daddy making sure that nothing unseemly enters our ears or we can vote for people who razzle dazzle us with their bullshit. (which we seem to do a lot of now) For a fair and balanced array of opinions about this issue I think this article is awfully good.

First of all, great post.

Quoting Wonderment: Money from corporations (or unions) going into campaigns corrupts the process in because $$$ is effective. The corruption happens in three main ways: 1) the election itself is bought; 2) the winner (and all prospective candidates) are beholden to the buyer; 3) elected officials are in thrall to perpetual fundraising.

And there's a fourth way: (4) Threats. Now, wealthy interests can threaten to spend $1 billion against a candidate unless they vote a certain way.

Quoting bjkeefe: Before anything else, so that you know where I'm coming from on this issue in general, I'll refer you to this, if you haven't already seen it.

That said, I do think there is a real problem with people's level of awareness about politics, politicians, and their keepers. I also think there is a real problem with how effective advertising is, particularly among those who can't or won't make the effort to better inform themselves.

I don't know the details of McCain-Feingold very well. I'd be interested to hear from you some specifics about the "side-consequences."

These guys seem to give credence to the slippery-slope argument. This segment tried to find out the consequences on the little guy.

Quoting badhatharry: The justices, with only Thomas in dissent, did uphold McCain-Feingold requirements that anyone spending money on political ads must disclose the names of contributors. The justices filed five separate opinions totaling 176 pages.

I'm with Thomas on this one. I don't want my access to anonymous speech to be restricted arbitrarily.

Quoting badhatharry: Well then"we" get the government we deserve. I think little Tommy Jefferson said that.
If we don't want to stay informed we can either have big daddy making sure that nothing unseemly enters our ears or we can vote for people who razzle dazzle us with their bullshit. (which we seem to do a lot of now)

For a fair and balanced array of opinions about this issue I think this article is awfully good.

There is no "we".

Quoting Unit: I'm with Thomas on this one. I don't want my access to anonymous speech to be restricted arbitrarily.

Cute!

Quoting Unit: These guys seem to give credence to the slippery-slope argument.

This segment tried to find out the consequences on the little guy.

I was hoping you might be able/willing to type out a few reasons yourself. I don't have much patience for sitting through videos when it seems like there ought to be a direct answer to my question. Sorry.

Quoting Unit: I'm with Thomas on this one. I don't want my access to anonymous speech to be restricted arbitrarily.

I can understand that in principle, but disclosure of political donations, especially above some threshold amount, seems like a good compromise between the ideal of perfectly unfettered speech and the reality that those with money have a much easier time acquiring disproportionate sway over our political process. Further, there should always be someone directly accountable for things like television ads. Without that requirement, there would be no end to outright lying. And no, I do not for a second trust the teevee people to police the validity of ads themselves. There's too much of an obvious conflict of interest there.

Quoting badhatharry: Well then"we" get the government we deserve. I think little Tommy Jefferson said that.

TJ (if that's who said it) was wrong to a degree here. The problem is, we too often get the government other people deserve. There is only so much clout one can wield by informing oneself, and it rarely matches up to the numbers represented by the crowds of people who get most or all of their information from the teevee, especially its ads. Which, you somewhat seem to be saying yourself:

If we don't want to stay informed we can either have big daddy making sure that nothing unseemly enters our ears or we can vote for people who razzle dazzle us with their bullshit. (which we seem to do a lot of now)

Unrelated:

For a fair and balanced array of opinions about this issue I think this article is awfully good.

That was pretty good. Thanks. Minor point of style: unfortunately, thanks to you know who, "fair and balanced" rings less as praise than sarcasm these days, at least to my ears. I doubt I'm alone in this. In the future, then, you may want to avoid it if you're interested in getting others

Quoting bjkeefe: I was hoping you might be able/willing to type out a few reasons yourself. I don't have much patience for sitting through videos when it seems like there ought to be a direct answer to my question. Sorry.

I was in hurry this morning, but essentially it's the usual story that in trying to go after the big fish the latter break through and wiggle away while a lot of small fishes get caught in the net.

Quoting bjkeefe: I can understand that in principle, but disclosure of political donations, especially above some threshold amount, seems like a good compromise between the ideal of perfectly unfettered speech and the reality that those with money have a much easier time acquiring disproportionate sway over our political process.

Further, there should always be someone directly accountable for things like television ads. Without that requirement, there would be no end to outright lying. And no, I do not for a second trust the teevee people to police the validity of ads themselves. There's too much of an obvious conflict of interest there.

There are other factors that police ads: reputation for one. If you want to be in business for a long time (and do not expect to be bail-out anytime soon) you better tell the truth. Also there are independent watch-dogs, such as consumer report, and products come with various refund guarantees etc....

Quoting Unit: I was in hurry this morning, but essentially it's the usual story that in trying to go after the big fish the latter break through and wiggle away while a lot of small fishes get caught in the net.

Pretty much what I said in the post I referred you to earlier.

Quoting Unit: There are other factors that police ads: reputation for one. If you want to be in business for a long time (and do not expect to be bail-out anytime soon) you better tell the truth. Also there are independent watch-dogs, such as consumer report, and products come with various refund guarantees etc....

No. This is sheer glibertarian magic pony sparkle dust nonsense. We're not talking about long-lived companies here that have to protect a brand identity. It's already way too easy as it is to form a group that runs a smear campaign full of lies and innuendo, or does some other dirty tricks, and then disbands right after a given election, all while the benefiting party/candidate plays wide-eyed innocence, denies any connection with the group, and piously intones that we Must Clean Up Our Electoral Process Even Though This Is Just An Outlier In Our Great And Good Democracy. Jesus. Do you ever read past the headlines?

Quoting bjkeefe: No. This is sheer glibertarian magic pony sparkle dust nonsense. We're not talking about long-lived companies here that have to protect a brand identity. It's already way too easy as it is to form a group that runs a smear campaign full of lies and innuendo, or does some other dirty tricks, and then disbands right after a given election, all while the benefiting party/candidate plays wide-eyed innocence, denies any connection with the group, and piously intones that we Must Clean Up Our Electoral Process Even Though This Is Just An Outlier In Our Great And Good Democracy.

Jesus. Do you ever read past the headlines?

Notice that the "swiftboat" campaign you're referring to arose with McCain-Feingold in place. And also such tactics seem to have back-fired in 08, no? Maybe people learned their lesson?

Quoting Unit: Notice that the "swiftboat" campaign you're referring to arose with McCain-Feingold in place.

I am not by any means defending McCain-Feingold.

And also such tactics seem to have back-fired in 08, no?

No.

Maybe people learned their lesson?

Not a chance. They learned the opposite lesson. Look, Unit. There are some times when I can take your reality-free, teh-free-market-uber-alles attitude. But not this time. All I'm going to do is get irritated. Let's just drop it. You don't even appear to know where I'm coming from on this issue.

Quoting bjkeefe: I am not by any means defending McCain-Feingold.

No.

Not a chance. They learned the opposite lesson.

Look, Unit. There are some times when I can take your reality-free, teh-free-market-uber-alles attitude. But not this time. All I'm going to do is get irritated. Let's just drop it. You don't even appear to know where I'm coming from on this issue.

Huh?? I agree with the post you referred to. So where do we go from there?
You know my point of view: the root cause is the concentration of power at the top and the fact the it's the majority of voters that constantly ask our politicians to grab more power. But you know all these arguments already.

Quoting Unit: I agree with the post you referred to.

Okay, let's leave it at that.

Quoting bjkeefe: Okay, let's leave it at that.

Sure, whatever you want to do. For whoever is interested though. This raised a good question for me. When I was talking about ads above, I thought Bj had switched to ads in general,and for that, as I said, there are all kinds of market mechanisms that keep ads honest on average. Mainly that's because people buy the products and consume them directly, so they get immediate feed-back. In politics it doesn't work that way. Nobody ever feels the direct consequences of one's own irrational thought. Costs are diffuse (benefits are concentrated, but that's another story). So I agree with Bj that political ads might not follow the same theory of "advertising" that essentially informs citizens. To tell you the truth I don't know as of now a good model for political ads.

Quoting Unit: Sure, whatever you want to do.

For whoever is interested though. This raised a good question for me. When I was talking about ads above, I thought Bj had switched to ads in general,and for that, as I said, there are all kinds of market mechanisms that keep ads honest on average. Mainly that's because people buy the products and consume them directly, so they get immediate feed-back. In politics it doesn't work that way. Nobody ever feels the direct consequences of one's own irrational thought. Costs are diffuse (benefits are concentrated, but that's another story). So I agree with Bj that political ads might not follow the same theory of "advertising" that essentially informs citizens. To tell you the truth I don't know as of now a good model for political ads.

Glad we somehow arrived at that (emph. added) point of agreement, at least.