Skip to comments.Shut up, they explained (anti-internet speech)
Posted on 01/25/2006 7:39:04 AM PST by PolishProud
The most imminent danger comes from campaign-finance rules, especially those spawned by the 2002 McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act...It's easy to see why liberals have spearheaded the nation's three-decade experiment with campaign-finance...election-law reforms obstruct the kinds of political speech--political ads and perhaps now the feisty editorializing of the new media--that escape the filter of the mainstream press and the academy, left-wing fiefdoms still regulation-free.
McCain-Feingold, the latest and scariest step down that slope, makes it a felony for corporations, nonprofit advocacy groups and labor unions to run ads that criticize...members of Congress within 60 days of a federal election, when such quintessentially political speech might actually persuade voters. It forbids political parties from soliciting or spending "soft money" contributions to publicize the principles and ideas they stand for.
Campaign-finance reform has a squeaky-clean image, but the dirty truth is that this speech-throttling legislation is partly the result of a hoax perpetrated by a handful of liberal foundations, led by the venerable Pew Charitable Trusts. New York Post reporter Ryan Sager exposed the scam when he got hold of a 2004 videotape of former Pew official Sean Treglia telling a roomful of journalists and professors how Pew and other foundations spent years bankrolling various experts,...all aimed at fooling Washington...
In Foley's view, the chilling of speech is "the necessary price we must pay in order to have an electoral system that guarantees equal opportunity for all." But when these experts pen law-review articles with titles like "Campaign Finance Laws and the Rupert Murdoch (Fox News) Problem," you know it isn't the New York Times or CBS News that they have in mind.
Without the blogosphere, Howell Raines would still be the New York Times' editor, Dan Rather would only now be retiring, and John Kerry might be president of the U.S.,...
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
--bump for later--great post--be very afraid--
Politicians! "Good Morning," they lied. And the biased media twisted the story.
Other sites? They just don't love us...sniff. :-(
After Alito is on the bench, hopefully the question of the McCain-Feingold law will come up. It is totally unconstitutional.
The left is for free speech as long as it supports their position only.
They are for privacy as long as it supports their position on abortion.
The liberal is a hypocrite and the truth is beginning to come out. Only, it's much worse than even O'Reily makes it out to be.
A liberal is for the legalization of drugs as long as it's not their son using them.
They are against capital punishment, but avoid answering what they would want if their wife were raped and then murdered.
They are for the legalization of prostitution, of course as long as it's not their daughter thats sucked into this industry.
The liberal is a hypocrite in every sense. Liberalism is a disease, a product of a wealthy affluent society where kids grow up out of touch with reality. Many of these people dont even know where their food comes from or is produced. They know electricity comes from an outlet and think you can rationally talk to a Radical Islamist. Completely unattached from reality they live in their bubble and are fed a bunch of hypothetical non-sense in college. Why do you think Socialism is such a prevalent idea in our universities and colleges? Its a pure academic exercise with little practical application. But for the idiot living in his bubble-world at UCLA it seems like a great idea.
Then again, ask Mr. Bubble-head if hes willing to give up HIS personal wealth and belongings for this socialist idea he purports? Ever notice how the best socialist minded kids come from bourgeois families?
Gun control, sure yea we need that, right Ms. Rosie ODonnell? Oh, right you need special protection for your kids at a school!
"Studies galore have found little or no significant influence of campaign contributions on legislators' votes."
Well, now. Isn't this an interesting comment by The Wall Street Journal. I suppose it means that our brain is not functioning correctly if we think otherwise.
"After Alito is on the bench, hopefully the question of the McCain-Feingold law will come up. It is totally unconstitutional."
Yeah, I hope so! With Alito replacing O'Connor, we should defnitely have the votes to overturn it. When the Court upheld the law, it was a 5-4 decision with O'Connor providing the fifth vote. In dissent were Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas, and Kennedy. Roberts will almost certainly vote the way Rehnquist voted, and Alito should provide the final vote we need.
Kennedy is the question.
I'm sure that these "different kinds of people" that Deaniac is referring to here would bare a striking ideological resemblance to Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin. The Lefts agenda becomes more obvious by the day. Soon, even the sheeple might start taking notice.
I don't think your brain is functioning correctly if you think believing the WSJ's study is mandatory. Perhaps you have a study that's more believable or are you just reacting emotionally?
"I don't think your brain is functioning correctly if you think believing the WSJ's study is mandatory. Perhaps you have a study that's more believable or are you just reacting emotionally?"
Perhaps. And I thank you for your overly kind words.