Why are Dems Opposing This?

[Jetgirl]

Democrats in congress are opposing the "Online Freedom of Speech Act".

Huh? What?

I don't get it. Someone explain what I'm missing here.

The "Online Freedom of Speech Act", H.R. 1606, which will exempt the Internet from McCain-Feingold (as was the case in the 2004 election), is being considered by Congress today. If Democrats continue to oppose it, the FEC will pass court-ordered regulation that could affect the ability of websites like this one to use the authors' First Amendment rights to legally comment on federal elections, which in turn could set a precedent for state regulation.

http://www.overlawyered.com (third article down)

 

[DhaliClone]

Wait, so if this doesn't pass, FEC can get a court order to stop websites from talking about federal elections? Is that right, the way I'm reading it?

I strongly support this bill.

It just seems a little disheartening having to pass a bill to protect the First Amendment.

 

[Alarum]

HR 1606 is one of those little bills that lies about what it actually does. It purports to prevent the FCC from shutting down any website that comments on the campaign. What it really does is prevent the FCC from shutting down any website funded by a political party. In other words, it's a cute back door for the Republicans to pour millions of dollars in soft money over the internet.

Here's the entire arguement against it basically:
http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={91FCB139-CC82-4DDD-AE4E-3A81E6427C7F}&DE={A5D97D5A-D53C-4EEC-9334-80932F81E787}

It's a classic Trojan Horse bill.

 

[AirPo]

I think that is such a scummy thing to do. There should be a law against giving misleading names to bills.

 

[MethodMan]

HR 1606 is one of those little bills that lies about what it actually does. It purports to prevent the FCC from shutting down any website that comments on the campaign. What it really does is prevent the FCC from shutting down any website funded by a political party. In other words, it's a cute back door for the Republicans to pour millions of dollars in soft money over the internet.

Here's the entire arguement against it basically:
http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={91FCB139-CC82-4DDD-AE4E-3A81E6427C7F}&DE={A5D97D5A-D53C-4EEC-9334-80932F81E787}

It's a classic Trojan Horse bill.

kj

 

[variant]

Well I guess if you consider large companies being unrestricted in spending millions of dollars to fuel mostly negative campaign adds on the internet and stamping out any semblance of reasonable debate in this country "Freedom of Speech" I guess I am against "Freedom of Speech".

If these ads and websites were really about informing the public about positions and opening up worthwhile debate I would be up in arms about this. Of course the FEC would never bother such a website in the first place.



It's really a wonder why Republicans were against McCain Feingold in the first place. They only ran two of the most expensive, negative campaigns in history of America after it was passed.

 

[Jetgirl]

Well I guess if you consider large companies being unrestricted in spending millions of dollars to fuel mostly negative campaign adds on the internet and stamping out any semblance of reasonable debate in this country "Freedom of Speech" I guess I am against "Freedom of Speech".

Well, yeah actually. Why should there be a limit on who can spend money to put something on the internet?

It really makes no sense why that would be limited, but everything else is a free-for-all. Seems like someone's a bit paranoid about having a truly open forum, if you ask me.

If these ads and websites were really about informing the public about positions and opening up worthwhile debate I would be up in arms about this. Of course the FEC would never bother such a website in the first place.

Should we eliminate everything from the internet that's not really about informing the public of something?

 

[Jetgirl]

HR 1606 is one of those little bills that lies about what it actually does. It purports to prevent the FCC from shutting down any website that comments on the campaign. What it really does is prevent the FCC from shutting down any website funded by a political party. In other words, it's a cute back door for the Republicans to pour millions of dollars in soft money over the internet.

So Repubs (and Democrats as well) can waste their money on the internet? I see this as more of a benefit to the Dmocrats, who have the slightly younger, more computer-savvy base.

Why shouldn't political parties fund web sites?

 

[AirPo]

So Repubs (and Democrats as well) can waste their money on the internet? I see this as more of a benefit to the Dmocrats, who have the slightly younger, more computer-savvy base.

Why shouldn't political parties fund web sites?

Not that they shouldn't fund web sites, but that they shouldn't be exempt from the campaign finance laws just because it's the internet.

 

[variant]

Well, yeah actually. Why should there be a limit on who can spend money to put something on the internet?



It really makes no sense why that would be limited, but everything else is a free-for-all. Seems like someone's a bit paranoid about having a truly open forum, if you ask me.

It should be regulated just as any other political advertisement is regulated now. This legislation is to remove regulations because it is the internet (I really have no idea what it being the internet has anything to do with). Truly open forums would lead to corporate sponsorship of political campaigns. Do your really want the McDonalds party running against the Coca-Cola party? You want it even more so than we already have? This would open our political forum in your opinion? Help freedom of speech?

Should we eliminate everything from the internet that's not really about informing the public of something?

Entertainment is not about trying to elect officials to write my laws. I hold them to different standards; you will have to forgive me.



The laws we have now regarding politics would be unnecessary if these adds were about informing the public about positions and having a substantive debate. That is my point, the ads are not about substantive debate; they are about misleading the public.



My freedoms of speech are not helped by having unregulated donations to political campaigns, as my voice is drowned out by what Bill Gates thinks. The only people who have anything to gain with this are people with boat loads of money and a political agenda.

 

[Jetgirl]

It should be regulated just as any other political advertisement is regulated now. This legislation is to remove regulations because it is the internet (I really have no idea what it being the internet has anything to do with). Truly open forums would lead to corporate sponsorship of political campaigns. Do your really want the McDonalds party running against the Coca-Cola party? You want it even more so than we already have? This would open our political forum in your opinion? Help freedom of speech?

I'd support that, at least who was financing who would be out in the open at that point.

I could care less about corporate sponsorship of whomever. I don't make decisions based on who's logo something is wearing.

Entertainment is not about trying to elect officials to write my laws. I hold them to different standards; you will have to forgive me.

Entertainment's not about trying ot elect officials? Yeek, take a trip to Calli sometime. Entertainment is ALL about politics.

The laws we have now regarding politics would be unnecessary if these adds were about informing the public about positions and having a substantive debate. That is my point, the ads are not about substantive debate; they are about misleading the public.

Which they are now, which they were then, which they will be in the future. Instead of trying to fix the problem by limiting speech (which always backfires) how about trying to get voters to think for themselves?

My freedoms of speech are not helped by having unregulated donations to political campaigns, as my voice is drowned out by what Bill Gates thinks. The only people who have anything to gain with this are people with boat loads of money and a political agenda.

Freedom of speech does not include the right for you to be not be drowned out by someone else.

 

[nvxplorer]

Freedom of speech does not include the right for you to be not be drowned out by someone else.

No, it doesn’t - by others’ speech. Having your speech drowned out by money is a different story. It’s an inherently unfair system for which there is no clear solution. Purchasing a means of speech is perfectly fine in private life and commerce. When it comes to politics and government, I’m not so sure.

 

[Jetgirl]

No, it doesn’t - by others’ speech. Having your speech drowned out by money is a different story. It’s an inherently unfair system for which there is no clear solution. Purchasing a means of speech is perfectly fine in private life and commerce. When it comes to politics and government, I’m not so sure.

You know that basically means that if you were able to afford a bullhorn, and I were able to afford a stadium with KISS's own sound system you'd think that was unfair.

Is that so?

 

[Alarum]

So Repubs (and Democrats as well) can waste their money on the internet? I see this as more of a benefit to the Dmocrats, who have the slightly younger, more computer-savvy base.

Why shouldn't political parties fund web sites?

I don't know. Why shouldn't they fund television ads? But the point is to allow the political parties to pour millions of dollars into the web. Yeah, I could do without that spam. I'm against.

And yes, there's something inherintly unfair about a political party forming their own internet news service, not that that's stopped them (Drudge Report, News Max, WND, etc.)

 

[variant]

[/color]

I'd support that, at least who was financing who would be out in the open at that point.



I could care less about corporate sponsorship of whomever. I don't make decisions based on who’s logo something is wearing.

Except that this legislation would not put the sponsorship out in the open it would exempt the internet from some of the current laws that require transparency. So, I guess you actually don't agree with this legislation.



Good work there.

Which they are now, which they were then, which they will be in the future. Instead of trying to fix the problem by limiting speech (which always backfires) how about trying to get voters to think for themselves?

I do not now; and refuse in the near future, to have complete trust the American voter. Neither did our founding fathers. They built a system where we did not have to trust one another. My position is and always will be proven to be correct. Voters don't normally have a clue; you should really speak to them sometime. Most people don't know who their congressperson is. Many have no clue about what the Constitution says. My trying to inform them in your system will be stamped out by corporate sponsorship of a branded truth.



More money and more political ads have led to more of this problem, not less. Voters do not "think for themselves" they are a fairly easily manipulated mob. The name on this bill should show you the contempt our elected officials rightfully have for us. You seem to have fallen for it.



Many people were surprised when President Bush opted to say that "privatization of social security" was one of his main objectives. Exactly what does this help? Don't you think the voters should be making their decisions based on correct information rather than based on who can raise the most money to air emotionally charged political ads? Our current system is backfiring all on its own.

Freedom of speech does not include the right for you to be not be drowned out by someone else.

You don't consider it an abridgement to speech when one person can drown out 10 million? Money =/= speech, at least not entirely, that’s why we have limits on how much we can donate. Maybe you think I should support laws that give more freedoms to drown me out by my economic betters, but you’re going to have to wrap it in a neater package than "freedom of speech", you have to answer whose freedom, and at whose expense?



There are limits to every right, and these limits have long since been defined by the congress and the FEC. Speech being conveyed to the public via the internet is NOT different than another form.



Thankfully for you people with money are out there trumpeting "freedom of speech" so that you and I may not have to worry about our discussions mattering in the near future.

 

[nvxplorer]

You know that basically means that if you were able to afford a bullhorn, and I were able to afford a stadium with KISS's own sound system you'd think that was unfair.

Is that so?

If it effects politics or government, yes. Like I said, there isn’t a clear solution. Election campaigns should be about ideas, not who can outspend the other.

 

[MaryS]

So Repubs (and Democrats as well) can waste their money on the internet? I see this as more of a benefit to the Dmocrats, who have the slightly younger, more computer-savvy base.

Why shouldn't political parties fund web sites?

The advantage with soft money seems to be for Democrats.

from: http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527indivs.asp?cycle=2004
Top Individual Contributors to 527 Committees(list of 22)
2004 Election Cycle
(here are the top three:
1- Peter Lewis-Peter B Lewis/Progressive Corp- Cleveland, OH- $14,030,000
2- George Soros-Soros Fund Management- New York, NY- $12,600,000
3- Steven Bing-Shangri-La Entertainment- Los Angeles, CA- $8,086,273

*note: if you follow the above link and click on the individual's name, you'll find a listof the 527 groups contributed to;

for example, here's Peter Lewis' list:
Joint Victory Campaign 2004- $7,750,000
America Coming Together- $2,995,000
MoveOn.org- $2,500,000
Marijuana Policy Project- $485,000
Young Democrats of America- $250,000
PunkVoter Inc- $50,000

here's George Soros:
America Coming Together- $5,000,000
Joint Victory Campaign 2004- $4,550,000
MoveOn.org- $2,500,000
Campaign for America's Future- $300,000
Democracy for America- $250,000

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtes.asp
Top 50 527 Committees
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, liberal 527s have collected
about $131 million, while conservative groups have collected a mere $16 million during the 2004 election cycle.

 

[MaryS]

If it effects politics or government, yes. Like I said, there isn’t a clear solution. Election campaigns should be about ideas, not who can outspend the other.

If money buys political power, then I would like to know why the USA has had so many Democrat Presidents and Democrat-controlled Congresses.

 

[nvxplorer]

If money buys political power, then I would like to know why the USA has had so many Democrat Presidents and Democrat-controlled Congresses.

What are you asking? I really don’t understand your question.

My point was concerning whether political contributions are protected as speech. IMO, especially in today’s world of mass communication, the influence of money on political campaigns serves to stifle speech. Variant’s post fairly explains my position.

 

[whatbogsends]

HR 1606 is one of those little bills that lies about what it actually does. It purports to prevent the FCC from shutting down any website that comments on the campaign. What it really does is prevent the FCC from shutting down any website funded by a political party. In other words, it's a cute back door for the Republicans to pour millions of dollars in soft money over the internet.

Here's the entire arguement against it basically:
http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={91FCB139-CC82-4DDD-AE4E-3A81E6427C7F}&DE={A5D97D5A-D53C-4EEC-9334-80932F81E787}

It's a classic Trojan Horse bill.

Exactly. After a little research, this bill is designed to act as a loophole around campaign reform. Essentially, this bill doesn't affect the freedom of speech that most websites have. What it does do is allow a political party to skirt the election campaign restrictions placed on television, radio, and print ads via online advertisement. I oppose this bill as well.

Calling it the "Online Freedom of Speech Act" is similar to the naming of the "Patriot Act". A clever name used to rally support, irregardless of the true nature of the bill.