It blows my mind how the right intentionally has convinced their base that a corrupt campaign system is not only right but good for them and they eat it up. This is so very clearly not what the beloved founders intended with the constitution. 

---

It blows my mind how the right intentionally has convinced their base that a corrupt campaign system is not only right but good for them and they eat it up. This is so very clearly not what the beloved founders intended with the constitution. 

Well the right does seem to think corporations should be considered people. 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

You don't see a compelling reason why political campaign ads should be transparent? Really? None at all? 

 

Lol.   You seem to be asking me if I meant what I said above.   The answer is yes.  

 

There is a long and distinguished history of anonymous political speech.   Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense and published it anonymously.   Alexander Hamilton wrote for the Federalist Papers anonymously.   Benjamin Franklin wrote opinion pieces under a pseudonym.   Anonymous political speech goes back to the beginning of political speech.   They had it in ancient Greece.  

 

To limit anonymous political speech would have a chilling effect on free speech in general.  

 

So as curious as I am about who is really behind advertisements that tout various political points of view, if I were the Supreme Court, I would have to rule that limiting anonymous speech is a violation of the First Amendment.  

---

Lol.   You seem to be asking me if I meant what I said above.   The answer is yes.  

 

There is a long and distinguished history of anonymous political speech.   Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense and published it anonymously.   Alexander Hamilton wrote for the Federalist Papers anonymously.   Benjamin Franklin wrote opinion pieces under a pseudonym.   Anonymous political speech goes back to the beginning of political speech.   They had it in ancient Greece.  

 

To limit anonymous political speech would have a chilling effect on free speech in general.  

 

So as curious as I am about who is really behind advertisements that tout various political points of view, if I were the Supreme Court, I would have to rule that limiting anonymous speech is a violation of the First Amendment.  

 We are not talking about generic political speech, as your example point to, we are talking specifically about campaign ads. The campaign process needs to be completely transparent otherwise it will continue to be chock full of corruption. To think otherwise is just silly.

---

This has nothing to do with the content of the messages.  TV stations have been required to document and maintain publicly accessible records of political ad contracts since 1938.  In theory, all you had to do was mosey on over to the station and follow their public access procedures to view the docs.

 

Personally, I'm a lazy bastard and have never been curious enough about who paid how much for an ad to go through all that hullaballoo and rigamarole. However, if all I need is access to the inter-webs and I really want to know which red/blue affiliated group was slamming a particular blue/red candidate or policy, and how much was spent, why not?

---

Kaishakunin for hire.

* (disclaimer) If you think I'm serious, hit yourself in the face w/ a hammer.

 

We are not talking about generic political speech, as your example point to, we are talking specifically about campaign ads. The campaign process needs to be completely transparent otherwise it will continue to be chock full of corruption. To think otherwise is just silly.

So campaign ads aren't political speech then. And engaging in anonymous campaign ads is corruption. Got it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It blows my mind how the right intentionally has convinced their base that a corrupt campaign system is not only right but good for them and they eat it up. This is so very clearly not what the beloved founders intended with the constitution.

Please enlighten us as to what that pesky 1st Amendment was put there for then.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Please enlighten us as to what that pesky 1st Amendment was put there for then.

 

Clearly to protect the ability to control the nation with but a handful of people with the majority of the wealth. The system is broke and you've been convinced it's working just fine your you  :thumbsup:

---

So campaign ads aren't political speech then. And engaging in anonymous campaign ads is corruption. Got it.

Campaign ads are ads targeting at swinging votes in campaigns. A very specific thing that when it leads to swinging votes in government in the favor of the special interests or billionaires involved then yes that is 100% corrupt. 

 

The voters have a right to know who is telling them the things they see on the idiot box. An informed electorate is a good electorate. 

---

Campaign ads are ads targeting at swinging votes in campaigns. A very specific thing that when it leads to swinging votes in government in the favor of the special interests or billionaires involved then yes that is 100% corrupt. 

 

The voters have a right to know who is telling them the things they see on the idiot box. An informed electorate is a good electorate.

You do realize that ALL political campaigning is what you just described, yes? Swinging votes is the damn point of every campaigning technique done by every person who works to have any candidate elected anywhere ever. Your differentiation is imaginary, you just dont like other people doing it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Clearly to protect the ability to control the nation with but a handful of people with the majority of the wealth. The system is broke and you've been convinced it's working just fine your you  :thumbsup:

Uh, Im one of the loudest pounding the podium that it IS broken. We need to get BACK to the Constitution, not move further away as you propose.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Uh, Im one of the loudest pounding the podium that it IS broken. We need to get BACK to the Constitution, not move further away as you propose.

No you don't want to fix the problem. You are content with the current state of the campaign system. If you were not then you would be advocating for change. Change is necessary for the advancement of society. It's ok to alter things written so far in the past. Clinging to the past is dumb when it does not work anymore. 

---

You do realize that ALL political campaigning is what you just described, yes? Swinging votes is the damn point of every campaigning technique done by every person who works to have any candidate elected anywhere ever. Your differentiation is imaginary, you just dont like other people doing it.

See this is the problem. Everyone is wrong to be doing it. Not just your dumb side or the other dumb side. The entire populace deserves to know who is funding candidates and who is behind most of the laws being passed. It's a country of the people not of the rich. 

---

See this is the problem. Everyone is wrong to be doing it. Not just your dumb side or the other dumb side. The entire populace deserves to know who is funding candidates and who is behind most of the laws being passed. It's a country of the people not of the rich. 

 

Man, you really have a thing for rich people don'cha?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Man, you really have a thing for rich people don'cha?

 

I have a problem with them having more power proportionately to the rest of the population and near total control of governance. You, on the other hand, seem pleased with the oligarchy we have. 

---

I have a problem with them having more power proportionately to the rest of the population and near total control of governance. You, on the other hand, seem pleased with the oligarchy we have.

Well, I am a middle aged white dude; cause of and solution to all of Society's problems.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Well, I am a middle aged white dude; cause of and solution to all of Society's problems.

 

I have noticed you have stopped discussing and gone into sarcasm mode in pretty much every thread but i'll bite, what does that have to with the mega rich or huge corporations picking the winners of elections and consistently influencing policies and laws to suite their liking in a disproportionate manner? Why don't you try explaining your position on how this is a good thing?

---

I have noticed you have stopped discussing and gone into sarcasm mode in pretty much every thread but i'll bite, what does that have to with the mega rich or huge corporations picking the winners of elections and consistently influencing policies and laws to suite their liking in a disproportionate manner? Why don't you try explaining your position on how this is a good thing?

To expand on it would require that I accept your premise. If that were so our national elections the last 6 years would not have turned out the way they did.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

To expand on it would require that I accept your premise. If that were so our national elections the last 6 years would not have turned out the way they did.

:thanks:

---

Campaign ads are ads targeting at swinging votes in campaigns. A very specific thing that when it leads to swinging votes in government in the favor of the special interests or billionaires involved then yes that is 100% corrupt. 

 

The voters have a right to know who is telling them the things they see on the idiot box. An informed electorate is a good electorate. 

 

I do not agree that attempting to swing votes in government in favor of special interests is inherently corrupt.   In fact, when you say, "swinging votes in government in the favor of the special interests..." aren't you just describing democracy itself?  This is how a democratic republic operates.  

 

You also say, "The voters have a right to know who is telling them the things they see on the idiot box."   Where in the Constitution does it say the voters have that right?  

 

Then you say, "An informed electorate is a good electorate."  Yes, absolutely.   But I can see a scenario where disallowing anonymous political speech would actually lead to a less informed electorate, if it deters people from making a political statement.   If you want to make a political statement through an advertisement, but were afraid that revealing your name could lead to some sort of retaliation against you, then you could be deterred from running that advertisement, and that could lead to a less informed electorate, not a more informed one.   What I am saying is, rights apply to everyone, and if you take away the right to run an anonymous political advertisement, you are not just taking that right away from millionaires and billionaires, you are also taking that right away from yourself.  

---