Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The fact is that rich individuals were always free to spend as much of their own money as they wanted at any point during an election cycle, with no restrictions.
During the period between McCain-Feingold and Citizens United, wealthy individuals were indeed free to spend any amount of money, but not without any restriction whatsoever.
527 organizations enjoy any number of practical advantages over individuals. In any event, wealthy individuals did often find campaign spending through 527 organizations (see, eg, ELECTION 2004 / 2 Texans dig deep for boat vet ads / Pair from Dallas kick in $3 million for group's coffers 10/05/2004 | Archives | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle) preferable to directly creating ads and airing them. Thus, to restrict 527 organizations, as McCain-Feingold did, was also substantially to impose restrictions on wealthy individuals.
Why don't you look up how hard it is to prove libel during a political campaign sometime.
We'll see, there is certainly going to be a lot of it this year, when they use their wealth to buy a half hour the night before election on all compliant networks to air some SHOCKING!!! made up pack of lies perhaps you can still somehow persuade yourself that you are still with the good guys.
Want to make a bet on that?
We'll see, there is certainly going to be a lot of it this year, when they use their wealth to buy a half hour the night before election on all compliant networks to air some SHOCKING!!! made up pack of lies perhaps you can still somehow persuade yourself that you are still with the good guys.
Want to make a bet on that?
A bet on what? That they are going to buy a block of airtime the night before the election to air some kind of attack? It's going to happen.
Want to make a bet on that?
A bet on what? That they are going to buy a block of airtime the night before the election to air some kind of attack? It's going to happen.
That I will have trouble convincing myself I am still one of the good guys. There is no doubt in my mind, which is interesting since just 4 years ago I argued vociferously that money is not speech, and that all campaign spending should be restricted. I did so a lot more eloquently than you do, by the way. I just learned from others who happened to understand the situation better than I did.
The fact is that rich individuals were always free to spend as much of their own money as they wanted at any point during an election cycle, with no restrictions.
During the period between McCain-Feingold and Citizens United, wealthy individuals were indeed free to spend any amount of money, but not without any restriction whatsoever.
527 organizations enjoy any number of practical advantages over individuals. In any event, wealthy individuals did often find campaign spending through 527 organizations (see, eg, ELECTION 2004 / 2 Texans dig deep for boat vet ads / Pair from Dallas kick in $3 million for group's coffers 10/05/2004 | Archives | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle) preferable to directly creating ads and airing them. Thus, to restrict 527 organizations, as McCain-Feingold did, was also substantially to impose restrictions on wealthy individuals.
Let me try typing really slow.
Individuals are not 527 organizations. If they spent money directly they were never subject to any restrictions on any organization. Citing an example of a group that was restricted under McCain-Feingold as proof that individuals were restricted is a bit like pointing at the moon and saying it proves asteroids are made of green cheese.
Actually there were restrictions including the one that was the only question before the court, no airtime buys 6 weeks before an election, but the court had to be activist and proclaim that any restrictions were unconstitutional.
Those restrictions applied to corporations, not individuals.
Like I said, the fact that you guys don't know that speaks volumes.
"Speaks volumes" is a cop-out phrase that is often used by people who do not have a full grasp of the issues. It is a convenient way to put words into someone else's mouth without having to be specific. It is bullshit.
During the period between McCain-Feingold and Citizens United, wealthy individuals were indeed free to spend any amount of money, but not without any restriction whatsoever.
527 organizations enjoy any number of practical advantages over individuals. In any event, wealthy individuals did often find campaign spending through 527 organizations (see, eg, ELECTION 2004 / 2 Texans dig deep for boat vet ads / Pair from Dallas kick in $3 million for group's coffers 10/05/2004 | Archives | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle) preferable to directly creating ads and airing them. Thus, to restrict 527 organizations, as McCain-Feingold did, was also substantially to impose restrictions on wealthy individuals.
Let me try typing really slow.
Individuals are not 527 organizations. If they spent money directly they were never subject to any restrictions on any organization. Citing an example of a group that was restricted under McCain-Feingold as proof that individuals were restricted is a bit like pointing at the moon and saying it proves asteroids are made of green cheese.
I will certainly allow you to type as slowly as you feel comfortable doing.
I agree with your second two sentences, the first of which is self-evident and the second of which reiterates a point that I (and others) have made in this thread.
That 527s were restricted was one point in a logical chain. The other salient point was that individuals used (for a variety of sensible reasons) 527s. I'm an individual who at some times rides the bus (for a variety of sensible reasons). If a law were passed banning or restricting buses, I would certainly find myself restricted even were the law to fail to mention individuals directly. It is in this way that McCain-Feingold restricted individuals.
To reject as you did the entire chain of reasoning because a single part of it does not suffice (if we must resort to hyperbolic metaphors) is a bit like arguing that a car will never run because its wheels are not by themselves capable of providing motive power.
Do the Koch brothers want to be personally sued for libel? Hell no. Do they care if some front group gets sued for libel? Hell no.
Why don't you look up how hard it is to prove libel during a political campaign sometime.
We'll see, there is certainly going to be a lot of it this year, when they use their wealth to buy a half hour the night before election on all compliant networks to air some SHOCKING!!! made up pack of lies perhaps you can still somehow persuade yourself that you are still with the good guys.
so the difference between the OP mentioned super pac and a 527 is....?
A bet on what? That they are going to buy a block of airtime the night before the election to air some kind of attack? It's going to happen.
That I will have trouble convincing myself I am still one of the good guys. There is no doubt in my mind, which is interesting since just 4 years ago I argued vociferously that money is not speech, and that all campaign spending should be restricted. I did so a lot more eloquently than you do, by the way. I just learned from others who happened to understand the situation better than I did.
Really, so why are you getting on my case with this hair-splitting argument that nothing has really changed when clearly it has? This decision favored republicans and it is difficult finding any of them that are too broke up over that.
That I will have trouble convincing myself I am still one of the good guys. There is no doubt in my mind, which is interesting since just 4 years ago I argued vociferously that money is not speech, and that all campaign spending should be restricted. I did so a lot more eloquently than you do, by the way. I just learned from others who happened to understand the situation better than I did.
Really, so why are you getting on my case with this hair-splitting argument that nothing has really changed when clearly it has? This decision favored republicans and it is difficult finding any of them that are too broke up over that.
Did I say nothing has changed? I am pretty sure I am the one that keeps arguing that the change is good, despite all the doomsayers out there who are all upset about it. I have news for you, things change. They always will, it is impossible to stop it.
When I was in school we were inundated with the idea that the pace of change was bad. They worried that people wouldn't be able to adjust, They were wrong, the world survived. It will survive this too.
During the period between McCain-Feingold and Citizens United, wealthy individuals were indeed free to spend any amount of money, but not without any restriction whatsoever.
527 organizations enjoy any number of practical advantages over individuals. In any event, wealthy individuals did often find campaign spending through 527 organizations (see, eg, ELECTION 2004 / 2 Texans dig deep for boat vet ads / Pair from Dallas kick in $3 million for group's coffers 10/05/2004 | Archives | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle) preferable to directly creating ads and airing them. Thus, to restrict 527 organizations, as McCain-Feingold did, was also substantially to impose restrictions on wealthy individuals.
Let me try typing really slow.
Individuals are not 527 organizations. If they spent money directly they were never subject to any restrictions on any organization. Citing an example of a group that was restricted under McCain-Feingold as proof that individuals were restricted is a bit like pointing at the moon and saying it proves asteroids are made of green cheese.
I will certainly allow you to type as slowly as you feel comfortable doing.
I agree with your second two sentences, the first of which is self-evident and the second of which reiterates a point that I (and others) have made in this thread.
That 527s were restricted was one point in a logical chain. The other salient point was that individuals used (for a variety of sensible reasons) 527s. I'm an individual who at some times rides the bus (for a variety of sensible reasons). If a law were passed banning or restricting buses (EDIT: to make the analogy clearer, let us say "bus companies" rather than "buses"), I would certainly find myself restricted even were the law to fail to mention individuals directly. It is in this way that McCain-Feingold restricted individuals.
To reject as you did the entire chain of reasoning because a single part of it does not suffice (if we must resort to hyperbolic metaphors) is a bit like arguing that a car will never run because its wheels are not by themselves capable of providing motive power.
Really, so why are you getting on my case with this hair-splitting argument that nothing has really changed when clearly it has? This decision favored republicans and it is difficult finding any of them that are too broke up over that.
Did I say nothing has changed? I am pretty sure I am the one that keeps arguing that the change is good, despite all the doomsayers out there who are all upset about it. I have news for you, things change. They always will, it is impossible to stop it.
When I was in school we were inundated with the idea that the pace of change was bad. They worried that people wouldn't be able to adjust, They were wrong, the world survived. It will survive this too.
You adjust to incresed corporatist rule, I think I will resist it just for spite.
Those restrictions had a much greater impact on individuals who have to take the bus than the ones with the limos. Overturning them gave the people who have to use the bus because they don't even have a car a voice. The reason McCain Feingold was written was to prevent ads like the Swift Boat ads that scuttled Kerry's campaign. Those were funded mostly by smaller donations, not the $3 million that came from the two cited in your article, just like "Hillary, the Movie" was. It takes a lot more than $3 million to launch a national advertising campaign, even way back in 2004.
Those restrictions had a much greater impact on individuals who have to take the bus than the ones with the limos. Overturning them gave the people who have to use the bus because they don't even have a car a voice. The reason McCain Feingold was written was to prevent ads like the Swift Boat ads that scuttled Kerry's campaign. Those were funded mostly by smaller donations, not the $3 million that came from the two cited in your article, just like "Hillary, the Movie" was. It takes a lot more than $3 million to launch a national advertising campaign, even way back in 2004.
I'm not sure we are interpreting the analogy I propose the same way. I proposed bus-riders as an analogy for wealthy individuals who wish to influence elections (I had not intended to attach any significance to the fact that the former tend to have much less income than the latter). So if you are also interpreting it that way, saying as you do now that the restrictions (my hypothetical bus ban or its analog, McCain-Feingold) do impact individuals is equivalent to my assertion that McCain-Feingold did in effect restrict wealthy individuals, rather than your assertion that it did not. Given this contradiction to your past statements, I'm having difficulty parsing your most recent response (even ignoring your reference to limousines, which I take to be a joke rather than either an important part of your argument or a sincere assertion about my financial situation).
I don't want to wander farther afield from the actual thread topic (which was the formation of a Democratic PAC) but I don't think McCain Feingold was intended to prevent swiftboat-type ads (though it was intended to limit them and other ads). McCain Feingold was in full effect when the swiftboat ads aired, and McCain himself, who condemned the ads at length, did not seem to suggest that they violated either the letter or the spirit of the law (McCain deplores anti-Kerry ad - politics - msnbc.com).
Any bets about how long it takes the Democrats to condemn him for forming the Super PAC to end all Super PACS?
What I am saying is McCain Feingold did not restrict wealthy individuals who could afford to spend money anyway they wanted. It restricted the people who don't have that kind of money, the ones that, by law, are forced into forming corporations in order to even run an ad, and then are prohibited, again by law, from running any ads about candidates. That never impacted the Koch brothers, it just impacted their employees.
By the way, just as an FYI since you are generally better informed than the average poster here. Citizens United did not make Super PACs possible, that came about because of an appellate court decision in Speechnow v FEC. You should look it up, you might find you actually agree with them.
What I am saying is McCain Feingold did not restrict wealthy individuals who could afford to spend money anyway they wanted. It restricted the people who don't have that kind of money, the ones that, by law, are forced into forming corporations in order to even run an ad, and then are prohibited, again by law, from running any ads about candidates. That never impacted the Koch brothers, it just impacted their employees.
By the way, just as an FYI since you are generally better informed than the average poster here. Citizens United did not make Super PACs possible, that came about because of an appellate court decision in Speechnow v FEC. You should look it up, you might find you actually agree with them.
I believe I understand your position now, though I still don't entirely agree with it. I would say that McCain Feingold restricted both wealthy and non-wealthy individuals, though perhaps to different degrees. Certainly, middle-class individuals found themselves less able to influence the political process than wealthy ones after McCain Feingold, but that was the case before it as well.
You're quite right that Super PACs were not created until after the Speechnow case. However, I would still say that Citizens United was the crucial factor that created Super PACs. Speechnow was a decision by a lower court that relied on the Citizens United ruling. As far as whether I agree with the Speechnow decision, I don't agree with the underlying reasoning (which comes from Citizens United) but I do recognize that the lower court is obligated to accept the reasoning of the Supreme Court, so I don't believe that the Speechnow decision itself was wrong.
There is actually a simple solution to all of this, eliminate the independent corporations in tax law. This would allow candidates to have more control over ads run by supporters and, I think, would be constitutional because it would not restrict the ability of individuals to contribute to candidates and causes they support. It would also limit larger donations from individuals through social pressure on candidates, which is much harder to ignore. Especially if people actually vote for candidates that don't accept donations from people like Limbaugh or Maher.
There is actually a simple solution to all of this, eliminate the independent corporations in tax law. This would allow candidates to have more control over ads run by supporters and, I think, would be constitutional because it would not restrict the ability of individuals to contribute to candidates and causes they support. It would also limit larger donations from individuals through social pressure on candidates, which is much harder to ignore. Especially if people actually vote for candidates that don't accept donations from people like Limbaugh or Maher.
If I understand your reference to social pressure correctly, you are proposing that anonymous donations be banned. Such a policy would probably be preferable to the one we have now, but I am not optimistic that such a policy
1) Could make it through Congress
2) Could avoid loopholes or other issues which limited enforceability
3) Could withstand scrutiny from the current Supreme Court
