RNC considers selling TV rights of presidential primary debates

[gekaap]

How is this any different then selling tickets to see Al Gore? Aren't those tickets considered fund raising monies and aren't they held to campaign finance laws?

A speech by Al Gore or Obama is essentially entertainment. Even if they discuss important topics of current public concern, Gore and Obama are private citizens entertaining guests in their setting.

A candidate debate is a different matter. The candidacy is for elected public office, and the debate presents the views of those candidates. By having the debates, the RNC concedes the importance to the public to be informed about what ends up being discussed. Thus, public interest in news coverage in the debates is implied in their existence. The first amendment rights to freedom of the press apply.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And this matters because.... ????

 

[8537]

Right...Yet there's nowhere that any of that says the selling of broadcast rights is an in-kind donation.

But never mind all of it, because it's not going to happen anyways.

The law doesn't talk about in-kind donations. The law talks about contributions.
I guess one could make a case that the "contribution" is the amount over direct costs - but the direct costs in both of our examples is minimal relative to the price.

But you're right, we're whistling in the wind here...Not to be confused with the usual whistling on this message board.

 

[Care4all]

How is this any different then selling tickets to see Al Gore? Aren't those tickets considered fund raising monies and aren't they held to campaign finance laws?

A speech by Al Gore is essentially entertainment. Even if Gore discusses important topics of current public concern, Gore is a private citizen entertaining guests.

A candidate debate is a different matter. The candidacy is for elected public office, and the debate presents the views of those candidates. By having the debates, the RNC concedes the importance to the public to be informed about what ends up being discussed. Thus, public interest in news coverage in the debates is implied in their existence. The first amendment rights to freedom of the press apply.

i was using gore as an example of people paying to see him and the money going to the DNC, not him personally....wouldn't THAT money have to be held to campaign finance laws and limitations?

 

[gekaap]

i was using gore as an example of people paying to see him and the money going to the DNC, not him personally....wouldn't THAT money have to be held to campaign finance laws and limitations?

Right, I understood that. I'm hypothesizing that it's a difference of event function which makes the "contribution" of a different nature.

 

[Two Thumbs]

And this matters because.... ????

The thought police are on patrol.

The Reps thought of something the libs don't like, so the libs acuse them of doing it.

And that's against the law!

How dare reps think out loud and stuff.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The RNC should have hired Ron Popeil for their new chairman.

 

[McDowell's]

Why would the RNC restrict their debates to a single network anyway? That sounds completely counter-productive to their cause. Of course, it is the RNC, so they probably think it makes perfect sense.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The RNC should have hired Ron Popeil for their new chairman.

Pocket fisherman!!


FUCK YEAH!