Third Way Not So Bad | 41 comments (41 topical, 0 hidden)
I know that you know :) (none / 0)

I was kind of surprised at that "pet project" remark, too.  But I think he was distinguishing between legislation that has effects that would be immediately visible to Joe American when he goes to get his mail or to pay his bills versus something more subtle.

There is no doubt that public financing of campaigns would cause a drastic realignment of political relationships.  But Joe American can hold a refund check in his hand.

One thing though: if we do get public financing of campaigns, we're going to have to drastically improve the knowledge and ability to reason of our citizens.  We've been able to let our educational system lag behind other countries with more politically involved citizens because we've been letting corporations make our political decisions, and they benefit if we know only enough to be productive workers.

"New math" ain't gonna cut it anymore.  We're going to have to teach why, not merely how, and that is how the revolution will continue.

--------------------------- -----------------
The revolution begins with public financing of campaigns.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 08:05:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I know that I shouldn't be at this point... (none / 0)
...but I am continually amazed at the extent of your inability to grasp any topic at all.

Public financing of campaigns is an entirely different issue than what the Supreme Court addressed and stops no one from speaking or from spending their money anyway that they want to.  It has to do with from whom a candidate or a party can accept contributions: no one at all, if she or he wants public funds.  And those funds would match anything that someone using private funds would try to spend.

And that would be "like shooting fish in a barrel":

"My opponent has taken contributions from [freedom-hating-source] who, as everyone knows, wants to [description-of-a-painful-s ex-act-but-without-Vaseline ] you. But I owe [freedom-hating-source] nothing!"

But if you aren't a candidate you can buy all the newspaper ad space or infomercial time you want with money from any source whatsoever.  And I don't have much of a problem with that (although the Supreme Court's finding that money is speech obviously is a logical fallacy).  Your candidate, however, will be prohibited from coordinating with you, which means that running such independent ads would be a very foolish thing to do unless you want to risk causing your candidate to lose.

By the way: Congress has passed many laws abridging the freedom of speech in direct contradiction to the First Amendment but with, apparently, a compelling state interest (an argument that was not made in Buckley v. Valeo, thank goodness).  But, as I said, that has nothing to do with public financing of campaigns.  YOU will still be able to buy airtime supporting your favorite totalitarian dictator.

Jeezus Ken do some goddamned research on the right topic f'cryinoutloud!  This is getting ridiculous.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 11:21:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not talkin' about FREE speech. (none / 0)

Talkin' about PAID ADVERTISING. Advertising has to hold itself to higher standards of truthiness to avoid lawsuits.

I can't believe you would give money to the swift liars. Do you belong to the 700 Club, too?

by MedfordTim on 02/17/2008 11:25:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Third Way Not So Bad | 41 comments (41 topical, 0 hidden)