Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Biden: Did he really say that?
Posted by: McQ on Monday, August 28, 2006

The more this guy opens his mouth, the less and less surprised I am at what comes out of it.

In answer to a question about his ability as an '08 presidential contender to take the south Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) said the following:
"You don't know my state," he said. "My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state has the eighth-largest black population in the country. My state is anything from a Northeast liberal state."
And this is supposed to appeal to southern voters in what way, Mr. Biden? As usual, Democrats - or at least this one - haven't a clue about how to appeal to southern voters, and, if I were a southern Democrat I'd be highly offended that this moron thinks appealing to the fact that his state and southern states were "slave states" over 100 years ago has any bearing whatsoever on the southern vote today (or his ability to capture it).

Idiot.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
If I had to guess, recent frequent commenter "william" probably thinks it should appeal very well.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Did Biden say it, or did Neil Kinnock?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I heard part of the interview and recall him mentioning God a couple of times.

I await the screams from the Left and Andrew Sullivan about Biden being a Theocon!!!!!
 
Written By: Paul L.
URL: http://kingdomofidiots.blogspot.com/
MK will surely come out and defend him and try to drag Allen into this I’m sure.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
The left doesn’t deserve to run a 7-11 let alone a country.
 
Written By: Josh
URL: http://
Correction Biden said "pray" three times and god once.

Transcript: Sen. Joe Biden on ’FOX News Sunday’

I still await the screams from the Left and Andrew Sullivan about Biden being a Theocon!!!!!

However, he could have been referring to praying to Allah/Gaia which is Ok with the left.
 
Written By: Paul L.
URL: http://kingdomofidiots.blogspot.com/
So the Confederate Flag is part of the heritage of the South, but slavery isn’t? I see. So I guess slavery and its legacy have absolutely zero bearing on what it means to be a Southerner. Who knew?

I doubt Biden was trying to "appeal" to Southerners by pointing out that Delaware was a slave state. I would imagine he was simply trying to educate the public about Delaware’s history when it comes to issues of race. (Which presumably interests Southern Democrats.) But, I guess McQ needs to gin up a little outrage.

As for me, I am outraged about the deaths of 8 (yes 8) US soldiers over the weekend in Iraq. Funny how that number of deaths hardly merits comment anymore.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
MKKK-

What, no Allen bashing? MACACCA! MACACCA! MACACCA! BY GOD, MACACCA!!!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Confederate Flag is part of the heritage of the South, but slavery isn’t?
I believe the point has been that some (SOME) people take pride in certain aspects of the southern heritage. And some of them like the Confederate Flag. So there is an attempt at focusing on something with redeeming qualities. Slavery would not be one of those qualities.

So how does the fact that DE was a ’slave state’ impact in any way Biden’s qualifications?
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
I doubt Biden was trying to "appeal" to Southerners by pointing out that Delaware was a slave state. I would imagine he was simply trying to educate the public about Delaware’s history when it comes to issues of race. (Which presumably interests Southern Democrats.)
Yeah, that works MK. Keep telling yourself it was all about educating the public. Gee ... wonder if that would work for Allen?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
To the vast majority of southerners, anything north of Virginia is New England. Biden might as well be from Maine.
 
Written By: BrianOfAtlanta
URL: http://
Hey MK you want to talk perspective? How about this stat The US military has had the least deaths in history for an operation of this size.
Any death is tragic so I just mention this to illustrate your lack of perspective.

In Nam 3,000 deaths was an average 8 month period. In WWII an average month.

As usual you are the one who lacks perspective, by following the lefts strategy of equating the WOT to Vietnam. (in earlier posts, and intimated here)

So tell us MK what is the next lefty talking point.
 
Written By: McQ2
URL: http://nukethebabywhales.gov
McQ-

I’m glad to see this post, because I’ve been wondering about this. You seem in other ways intelligent and reasonable, but as regards Sen. Biden, there seems to be a blind spot. What exactly is it about the man you think is so reprehensible?

I’ve been signed on to his UniteOurStates listserv for over a year now, and I have yet to see anything he’s said there which makes me think he’s an idiot.

After all, what’s the alternative? Hillary? Bush’s heir TBA? Which failed past presidential policy would you consider better than a new option in 2008? I honestly don’t know if Biden can hold up in a presidential race; the man has integrity, and we all know that’s a liability when running for that office. However, I would much rather vote for him than slick Willette.

I challenge you: Substantiate your claims that Biden lacks intelligence.

-Gil
 
Written By: Gil
URL: http://
You seem in other ways intelligent and reasonable...
You talkin’ to me? There goes my reputation.
... but as regards Sen. Biden, there seems to be a blind spot. What exactly is it about the man you think is so reprehensible?
I thought it was fairly obvious, Gil ... the idiotic (and implicitly racist) implication that southern camaraderie -and thus votes- is attained simply by being from one of the former "slave states".

Heck, we good old boys in the south couldn’t be happier, can’t you tell?

And btw, I defended Biden on his last gaffe. But he never seems to learn.

As for my Wal-Mart post, you tell me ... does it seem to you to be a smart strategy to attack a store 127 million Americans shop at each week because, obviously, they find value there?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I have yet to see anything he’s said there which makes me think he’s an idiot.
UGLY AMERICAN OF THE WEEK
 
Written By: Paul L.
URL: http://kingdomofidiots.blogspot.com/
I just think a little context helps here. Wallace suggested Biden was a Northeastern liberal, Biden obviously wanted to show what Delaware had in common with the South, and since Delaware did not secede, nor did they every fly the CSA flag, the only accurate way to say what they had in common was that they were a slave state. He is simply trying to say that Delaware is not a Northeastern liberal state, a stumbling but innocent attempt to bond with morons. From my point of view, that’s not a good thing, but y’all know national politics, if you only get every smart person in the country to vote for you, you will lose in a landslide.

WALLACE: And, finally, Senator Biden — finally, we’ve got about 30 seconds left, but I can’t let you go without some politics. As we’ve mentioned, you’re in South Carolina right now, on the campaign trial. Thirty seconds or less, what kind of a chance would a Northeastern liberal like Joe Biden stand in the South if you were running in Democratic primaries against southerners like Mark Warner and John Edwards.

BIDEN: Better than anybody else. You don’t know my state. My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state has the eighth-largest black population in the country. My state is anything from a Northeast liberal state.

By the way, I’d vote for Biden... assuming we have a Republican Congress... if we have a Democratic Congress, I’ll be looking at the Republican candidate. Checks and balances, gridlock is good.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
More Gridlock is good...ASTONISHING. Nihilism in its political sense. Privitize Social Security..No GRIDLOCKS IS GOOD. Withdraw from Iraq...No GRID LOCKS IS GOOD. Amend the Prescription Drug Plan.... No GRID LOCKS IS GOOD. Amend the Tax Code...NO GRID LOCKS IS GOOD. Curb spending...No GRID LOCKS IS GOOD. Impeach Bush...No GRID LOCKS IS GOOD.

Should it occur I shall be glad to remind the denizens of this place, that GRID LOCKS IS GOOD. When NOTHING happens or good things don’t happen....

"Grid lock is good" is the mantra of a person that has no hope or ambition or desire for change. You are either complacent or hopeless. OR simply that your policy prescriptions have been ignored/defeated.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
As for my Wal-Mart post, you tell me ... does it seem to you to be a smart strategy to attack a store 127 million Americans shop at each week because, obviously, they find value there?
Since you asked, no. Does it make sense for a promoter of free markets to defend monopoly?

RE: Ugly American of the Week.

Ugh. That’s as bad as eating jellybeans where the press can ridicule you for it. Or saying "read my lips" when you don’t mean it - unless you’re talking about not liking broccoli. Or not knowing how to keep your fly zipped. Or needing directions to get from the beginning of a sentence to its end.

The people responsible for organizing this event should be reprimanded for not doing their homework. When I see Mr. Biden laying out the silverware on something that goes this wrong, I’ll be worried. Until then, I think I’ll put the blame where it’s due - organizing staff.
Heck, we good old boys in the south couldn’t be happier, can’t you tell?
How does stating that Delaware was a slave state equate to an implication that the southern states still are? Isn’t it more accurate to interpret this as a statement which goes to demonstrating an ability to understand the challenges of being taken seriously by the non-confederates? How does illustrating that you have experience with border security fail to play in the South? Pointing out that you’re familiar with balanced leadership of large minority populations? Refusing to be pigeonholed as provincial?

That doesn’t sound stupid to me. Unpolished, yes. But that’s what speechwriters - and the next two years - are for.
 
Written By: Gil
URL: http://
Just to make sure I heard CaptainSarcastic correctly, Biden was simply trying to show that his state, Delaware, wasn’t a typical "Northeastern Liberal" state.

Fine.

Then why did Biden have to reach back 140 years? There hasn’t been anything in the nearly sesquicentennial since the Civil War ended where Delaware broke from the Northeastern Liberal orthodoxy?
 
Written By: SaveFarris
URL: http://
"Then why did Biden have to reach back 140 years? "

Because other than that, Delaware IS a typical Northeastern State.

I’m not saying Biden was accurate, I was just describing what he was trying to do, and agreeing that it was a stumbling attempt.

It’s no Macacca, but well see if the GOP talking heads can get this to take off... I doubt it.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
"More Gridlock is good...ASTONISHING"

I didn’t realize I’d be taken so literally, so I’ll elaborate.

When two parties share power, legislation and policy is more difficult to accomplish and requires more deliberation and debate, this has a better chance of resulting in good legislation as well as less legislation.

The Republicans rhetorically want lots of sensible things, and they have the power to do it, but instead are responsible for ridiclously bad, poorly conceived, and ill advised policies. That’s bad... but gridlock (as I define it) is good.

Better?

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
What constitutes a ’border’ state these days? Borders with the ocean? With other states? It’s not like he’s got a another country across the line.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Not to be rude, but in less time than it takes to type "What constitutes a ’border’ state these days", I was able to type Delaware border state in Google and find this...

The term border states refers to five slave states of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and West Virginia that were on the border between the Northern Union states and the Southern slave states that formed the Confederate States of America. In some of these states, there were both pro-Confederate and pro-Union governments, factions and men (sometimes even from the same family) that fought as soldiers on opposite sides in the American Civil War.

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
How does illustrating that you have experience with border security fail to play in the South?
Hmm. Bad geography, I retract the question.
 
Written By: Gil
URL: http://
Since you asked, no. Does it make sense for a promoter of free markets to defend monopoly?
What monopoly?
How does stating that Delaware was a slave state equate to an implication that the southern states still are?
Tell me Gil, if you were asked that question, would the first thing that rose to your mind be "Oh, we were all slave states" with the implication being that is what we have in common?

There is nothing else Delaware and the southern states have in common for heaven sake?

That’s how.
That doesn’t sound stupid to me. Unpolished, yes.
Yeah, he hasn’t been around long enough to be polished yet, has he?

As for the border bit, seems that’s already been caught so I’ll leave it alone.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
That’s bad... but gridlock (as I define it) is good.
Amen bro ... welcome to the club.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Gil, I think you and meagain (and me) all heard the same thing when "border states" was said. I’m _from_ Maryland, and I don’t think of the Civil War geography when that phrase is used.

The point is the message he was trying to convey was poorly communicated. Referring to the South as slave states isn’t going to endear him to many Southerners, despite the (140 year old) truth of the matter.
 
Written By: Bill W.
URL: http://
How Biden thinks all that is going to appeal to the modern South is, well, who knows.
He’s trying to claim he’s not a Yankee, but he isn’t a "southerner" either.
If Biden’s so proud of Delaware maybe he should note that 140+ years ago
bold Delaware voted to reject the 13th Amendment after the war ended.

That should play well with the black audience, so I’ll bet he doesn’t bring that up, assuming he knows about it at all.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Since you asked, no. Does it make sense for a promoter of free markets to defend monopoly?
He prefers it to defending Scrabble....I’m a Battleship fan myself, it’s the preferred game for us Bush-loving authoritarian cult war pimps.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Biden made a comment that will not accomplish it’s objective of endrearing him to rednecks, beyond that, it’s meaningless.

Anyone here taking issue with the comment would not have voted for him anyway.

It’s a zero sum poorly thought out comment.

Delaware’s rejection of the 13th Amendment is another thing that it has in common with Dixie.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Grid Lock even as you define it is BAD. Nothing happening isn’t better than SOMETHING. Democrats in the House and Senate will also FAIL to endorse tax cuts, now Jon mayhap will be happy, but neither will they restrain spending Jon will be UNHAPPY. They may endorse Iraqi Timelines or simply fail to provide supplemtnatal funding, meaning the war will be fought out of DoD’s hide as was Vietnam, I would think these will non=plus McQ. Grid lock isn’t going to mean NOTHING gets done, but it ensures that many of the things QandO thinks need doing won’t get done either.

Grid lock is the position of the powerless or the hopeless. I assume in QandO’s place it’s the former, but nonetheless your best position is to advocate for CHANGE, not stasis. But of course, change takes time and work...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Fair enough, a total dramatic change in the way government thinks and functions is preferred to gridlock. For example, I prefer that elections be publically funded and all private money be eliminated from the process. I would prefer this to grid lock. I can’t have this right now. I know that the Republicans will continue to screw up the country, I know that if Democrats earned a total monopoly on power, it will corrupt them, so my choice, between now and when I can have my way on publically financed elections, is to have a check on power, preferably with the Democrats in the majority for a while.

You call it hopeless, I call it an interim solution.

And by the way, nothing is often better than something when it comes to government action.

Although I believe that action was needed in response to 9/11, I also believe that we would have been better off doing absolutely nothing than doing what the Bush administration did.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
After all, what’s the alternative? Hillary? Bush’s heir TBA? Which failed past presidential policy would you consider better than a new option in 2008? I honestly don’t know if Biden can hold up in a presidential race; the man has integrity, and we all know that’s a liability when running for that office. However, I would much rather vote for him than slick Willette.
Still waiting to hear of a better alternative than Biden. Anyone?
 
Written By: Gil
URL: http://
Russ Feingold would do, but I would have no problem voting for Biden.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
From the southern folks: We don’t care that delaware was a slave state.
 
Written By: Mac
URL: http://
Gridlock isn’t stasis Joe ... and it would be welcome change.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Anyone here taking issue with the comment would not have voted for him anyway.
Well let’s see how it sells in the south among those who might vote for him.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Anyone?
Yes, anyone.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I know that if Democrats earned a total monopoly on power, it will corrupt them, so my choice, between now and when I can have my way on publically financed elections, is to have a check on power, preferably with the Democrats in the majority for a while.
But how are you going to GET your Publicly Financed Elections without a Party having a MONOPOLY of power? Plus that whole Frist Amendment thingee is going to be a bear, too...I mean SBVFT and Moveon.org aren’t going to go quietly into the night...or the Netroots crew... So your solution to many problems is to wish for the Good Policy Faeries to come and bring us elections funded at MY expense, cutting out public interst groups, but public financing won’t make politicians corrupt?
Although I believe that action was needed in response to 9/11, I also believe that we would have been better off doing absolutely nothing than doing what the Bush administration did.
I guess we could’ve INDICTED Usama and tried for his extradition....yeah that’s the ticket we could have used the Court System... and Saddam we could’ve have "Won Without War" the Sanctions were working...or were they killing 50,000 Iraqi babies a year, I get confused. We should have done SOMETHING, just not THIS something.
Gridlock isn’t stasis Joe ... and it would be welcome change.
SURE it would McQ... did you think I was only ironic up above, there are a number of things that a Democratic Congress will do that will INFURIATE you and Jon. You’re right "grid lock" is NOT stasis, but it’s not PROGRESS either. And until libertarians move past the admission of powerlessness and begin to move forward, they will be, in the words of TE Lawrence, via "Lawrence of Arabai", "What thye have always been, a Small People, a SIlly People...." I don’t mean to be personally insulting, but wishing for a "plague on both houses" usually just means a plague on EVERYONE and in this case will mean many bad policies will be adopted. Your answer is to field an ALTERNATIVE, not pray for dead lock.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
For example, I prefer that elections be publically funded and all private money be eliminated from the process.
Do you realize that would make it morally/ethically impossible for the Libertarian Party to participate in elections?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Anyone?
Independent, Black Face, Joe Lieberman?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Publicly financed?
Sure, so long as they keep their campaign budgets under, say, $100,000.

I don’t even contribute to the "it doesn’t cost you anything" Presidential campaign fund.
Sure it doesn’t cost us anything, the money they put into the fund just appears from the flying monkey’s butt, as if by magic.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Do you realize that would make it morally/ethically impossible for the Libertarian Party to participate in elections?
I believe there is a regular in here, who may suggest that there are other reasons as well. Then again, he may just laugh in his beard, mutter a curse, and move on.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
McQ- I’m glad to see this post, because I’ve been wondering about this. You seem in other ways intelligent and reasonable, but as regards Sen. Biden, there seems to be a blind spot. What exactly is it about the man you think is so reprehensible? Gil

McQ already answered you, but I’ll add a few things that people dislike about Biden. Plagarism. Saying stupid things, being an exemplar along with Schumer and McCain of the preening Senator full of himself who loves the camera and think themselves as far smarter than they actually are. Then again, they didn’t pick Harriet Miers or refuse to confront reality at an appropriate time...So McCain or Biden probably would have done better as President than Bush.
McQ - As for my Wal-Mart post, you tell me ... does it seem to you to be a smart strategy to attack a store 127 million Americans shop at each week because, obviously, they find value there?
If it was up to the brains of the American consumer, they would sell out the national interest for a bowl of lentils anytime...rationalizing that black market Confederate tobacco, opposing the embargo on Imperial Japan, wanting cheap Soviet natural gas (Europe), even trading with the Nazis in wartime (Joe Kennedy, Prescott Bush), trading with Saddam & Iran (USA through subsidiaries, Europe, China, ME directly) — was all under the Free-Traders Article of Faith —"GOOD FOR THE CONSUMER! THE CONSUMER SAVINGS ARE ALL THAT MATTER! (uummmm and us fatcats getting richer by undermining our current country of convenience) ALL OTHER
INTERESTS ARE SECONDARY TO THE CONSUMER DEAL!"
Gil - Still waiting to hear of a better alternative than Biden. Anyone?
A little early for picking - we always have a fixation on the Senators that fizzle once voters see they are....Senators...not Leaders. These days Senators are basically special interest group brokers, media whores, and fundraisers before any thought of leadership and the national interest enters their brains. At one time Senators were Leaders. They set course, led the nation in various spheres. For example, the Cold War has been thought by many to have been won by Southern Democrats who kept Soviet-sympathetic liberal Jews and the Northern elites of their party at bay for 30 years and set the table for Reagan by their hard anti-Communist slog.

I think the Dems are growingly thinking that the race is wide open. Gore and Kerry are damaged goods, and Bush will be leaving such a colossal mess that it actually will hurt Hillary tremendously. If the country was doing great, maybe they’d risk it. But PC will fall if they believe a woman lawyer with no executive experience, no military experience, and only 1 1/3rd terms as a freshman Senator isn’t up to the monumental work of repairing all the domestic and foreign crisis now hitting us and not being fixed.

Another joining the Presidential race is long-time Teddy Kennedy yes-man Chris Dodd of CT, who puts "China-loving Open Borders gun-banner, Good Ol Joe" his co-Senator to shame - as a Sinophile, gun-hater, Sandinista & Fidel Pal, and who is so pro-Open Borders he is saying it would be "immoral" to stop illegals without "Mexico’s agreement".

My own preference is to look to governors and generals. Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Mitt Romney, Bill Owens, Wesley Clark, unknowns with former military command experience now accomplished dual-hatters. Even Newt, one of the rare "true leaders and visionaries" in recent Congressional history.
 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
If this thing works, then the block quote I chose is above this and this will make sense, otherwise, oops...

You say that we should keep the elections under $100k and that basically you seem to infer that I am being naive in the pretense that publically financed elections are free.

I say that anyone that opposes publically funded elections on the grounds that it will cost the taxpayers money is naive and blind.

Corporations and other groups fund elections today to the tune of billions of dollars ever election year. They are rewarded to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Corporate welfare is simple transaction, we get you in, you hand us money, directly through gov’t contracts, or indirectly through beneficial legislation and other government largess.

I say that if you take private money out of elections, you can get the bribery payoffs out of government, so you’ll trade the hundreds of billions you pay now for mere billions.

Do the math.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
Publicly financed?
Sure, so long as they keep their campaign budgets under, say, $100,000.

I don’t even contribute to the "it doesn’t cost you anything" Presidential campaign fund.
Sure it doesn’t cost us anything, the money they put into the fund just appears from the flying monkey’s butt, as if by magic.
One more time...

You say that we should keep the elections under $100k and that basically you seem to infer that I am being naive in the pretense that publically financed elections are free.

I say that anyone that opposes publically funded elections on the grounds that it will cost the taxpayers money is naive and blind.

Corporations and other groups fund elections today to the tune of billions of dollars ever election year. They are rewarded to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Corporate welfare is simple transaction, we get you in, you hand us money, directly through gov’t contracts, or indirectly through beneficial legislation and other government largess.

I say that if you take private money out of elections, you can get the bribery payoffs out of government, so you’ll trade the hundreds of billions you pay now for mere billions.

Do the math.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
Not that it really matters much to this debate, but President Lincoln was relatively suspicious of Delaware’s leanings as concerned secession and the CSA once the war broke out. Delaware contributed only 10 regiments (9 infantry and 1 cavalry) and one battery of heavy artillery to the United States Army during the period 1861-1865. Even given their fairly small population, they could have easily doubled this number if their sympathies were with the Union cause. Maine (hardly a well-populated state either today or back in the 19th century) turned out 36 regiments (34 infantry and 2 cavalry). Delaware was very much "iffy" as a Union state and, although no doubt their culture today does not reflect modern Southern culture, historically it is very much an arguable point whether they are a "Southern" state or not, Biden’s gaffe notwithstanding.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
The more I think about it, the more objectionable ’public financing’ of elections becomes. Aside from the fact that it would leave Libertarians ethically unable to run for office, and that preventing individuals from spending money on their candidate would be an unconstitutional infringement of free speech, there are also some serious concerns about how such a program would evolve. Do you really want the government — i.e., politicians — in charge of deciding who gets to spend money to campaign for office, and how much? If you think McCain-Feingold was an incumbent protection act, imagine when politicians discover they pass legislation to give or withhold funds at their discretion.

And what about Joe Blow who wants to buy a newspaper ad or billboard in support of his candidate, or his favorite (pro or anti) ’gun control’ bill. He’s prohibited from doing so. Are newspapers also prohibited from running positive stories on candidates? If not, imagine how quickly they’d be bought up by interested parties.

Would bloggers be prohibited from supporting a candidate? What if they spend a lot of money to build a website in support of a candidate? That’s a ’donation’.

No, this whole public financing thing is a Constitutional liberty quagmire of epic proportions. I believe you’d see massive disobedience, and possible more.
I say that anyone that opposes publically funded elections on the grounds that it will cost the taxpayers money is naive and blind.
I think this is a bit myopic. Sure, anything could be a bit cheaper if you simply eliminated overhead by having the government dispense the money instead. I bet we could bring down the price of cars if the government nationalized GM, eliminated ’profits’ and administrative costs. But that doesn’t really allow the market (i.e., all of the individuals involved) to improve the process over time, to express their judgements, etc. Public financing might be cheaper in immediate dollar terms, but at what cost?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
...historically it is very much an arguable point whether they are a "Southern" state or not, Biden’s gaffe notwithstanding.
Having a single historical tie dos not a "southern state" make anymore than growing cotton in Illinois would make that state "southern".

Delware is a northern state, surrounded by northern states and with a culture that is, well, northern. If you’ve ever been there and even made cursory observations of the native culture it isn’t southern. Heck, they don’t even know how to make sweet iced tea ... and that automatically makes them a non-southern state (not to mention no chance in the world of finding a place to have grits for breakfast).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Well, there are many points in favor of considering Delaware part of the "South," McQ. They were a slave-holding state. They contributed a fair amount of volunteers to Virginia and Maryland CSA regiments during the Civil War and the issue of secession was not as cut-and-dry as their governor at the time made it out to be, "First to join the Union, last to leave it." The problem with Delaware was the same as all the border states (Maryland, Kentucky, etc.): the culture, attitudes, and population were very much split between Southerners (or Southern-leaning Northerners) and natives or migrant Northerners. Also, Delaware did not have the strong, Unionist immigrant population that say, New York or Pennsylvania did. I don’t contest the point that today’s Delaware is firmly a North East/New England state culturally and politically (again, Biden notwithstanding). I do still submit that Delaware’s status, circa 1860, is very much up for debate.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
Sure, anything could be a bit cheaper if you simply eliminated overhead by having the government dispense the money instead.
No, no, no, you are missing the point of where the savings comes from. I am not saying it would bne cheaper because the government dispenses the money to fund elections, I am saying that it would be cheaper because of what is currently bought for with the monies that currently fund candidacies.

Let me see if I can spell it out in an oversimplified example;

Bechtel contributes $1,303,765 in soft money and PAC contributions to political candidate campaigns.

USAID awarded the largest of its postwar Iraq contracts to Bechtel Group Inc. April 17. The capital construction contract gives Bechtel an initial award of $34.6 million, but provides for funding of up to $680 million over 18 months subject to Congress’ approval. Bechtel’s primary activities under the contract will include rebuilding power generation facilities, electrical grids, water and sewage systems and airport facilities in Iraq.

Bechtel gives pols $1.3M and receives $680M in taxpayer dollars.

There are caveats here, of course, one being that perhaps these projects needed to be done, and Bechtel is the largest player with the greatest reach, so I can’t say that the money did not need to be spent at all, but then again, if we never invaded Iraq, then yes, I can say that this money NEVER needed to be spent.

My point is that this stinks and is no way to run a government.

I care a great deal about the Constitution and free speech, but I’ll forego the argument supporting the constitutionality of publically financed election for a moment in favor of rationalization. If our constitution is being subverted by interests taking advantage of a constitutional loophole in the system, do you stand by the principal of constitutionality and throw your hands up, or do you address the problem?

For almost 200 years, business money was specifically excluded from campaign financing, until 1974 when the Buckley-Valeo ruling decided that money IS speech. Was our entire government unconstitutional from 1789 to 1974 and only became constitutional since 1974? Now the big question, was our government better when it was unconstitutional?

Let’s look at one single statistic from the period before 1974 and after.

Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (-): 1940–2011
(in millions of dollars)
Year
Outlays
1940 9,468
1941 13,653 44%
1942 35,137 157%
1943 78,555 124%
1944 91,304 16%
1945 92,712 2%
1946 55,232 -40%
1947 34,496 -38%
1948 29,764 -14%
1949 38,835 30%
1950 42,562 10%
1951 45,514 7%
1952 67,686 49%
1953 76,101 12%
1954 70,855 -7%
1955 68,444 -3%
1956 70,640 3%
1957 76,578 8%
1958 82,405 8%
1959 92,098 12%
1960 92,191 0%
1961 97,723 6%
1962 106,821 9%
1963 111,316 4%
1964 118,528 6%
1965 118,228 0%
1966 134,532 14%
1967 157,464 17%
1968 178,134 13%
1969 183,640 3%
1970 195,649 7%
1971 210,172 7%
1972 230,681 10%
1973 245,707 7%
1974 269,359 10%
1975 332,332 23%
1976 371,792 12%
1977 409,218 10%
1978 458,746 12%
1979 504,028 10%
1980 590,941 17%
1981 678,241 15%
1982 745,743 10%
1983 808,364 8%
1984 851,853 5%
1985 946,396 11%
1986 990,441 5%
1987 1,004,083 1%
1988 1,064,481 6%
1989 1,143,829 7%
1990 1,253,130 10%
1991 1,324,331 6%
1992 1,381,649 4%
1993 1,409,522 2%
1994 1,461,907 4%
1995 1,515,884 4%
1996 1,560,608 3%
1997 1,601,307 3%
1998 1,652,685 3%
1999 1,702,035 3%
2000 1,789,216 5%
2001 1,863,190 4%
2002 2,011,153 8%
2003 2,160,117 7%
2004 2,293,006 6%
2005 2,472,205 8%
2006 estimate 2,708,677 10%
2007 estimate 2,770,097 2%
2008 estimate 2,813,592 2%
2009 estimate 2,921,760 4%
2010 estimate 3,060,875 5%
2011 estimate 3,239,769 6%


Do you notice that at the same time money became speech, that speech seems to have had an echo in government?

I suggest Publically financed elections because I believe that is the only constitutional manner in which money, not speech, can be restricted.

I also support bringing back the equal time law.

Cap

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Gridlock isn’t stasis Joe ... and it would be welcome change.
It won’t be any change we could rationally want, since it means we keep on going the way we have been for 40 years on average (maybe that should read 111 years, YMMV).

Why is that a good thing?

From the article you quote on another thread:

The gains in the Northeast and Midwest, however, should be easily sufficient to carry the day. That would return political normalcy to America: divided government.


Since doing what we’ve been doing got us here, why do you want to stay on the same path?

You’ve never persuasively articulated how "gridlock" is anything new or better. It’s old and bad news.

Gridlock /= Stasis. Gridlock = Autopilot.

You haven’t made the case for why we want to stay on the course we’re on.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
It won’t be any change we could rationally want, since it means we keep on going the way we have been for 40 years on average (maybe that should read 111 years, YMMV).
Wouldn’t be better compared to what, Tom?

This? LOL!
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I suggest Publically financed elections because I believe that is the only constitutional manner in which money, not speech, can be restricted.

I also support bringing back the equal time law.
Money = speech the same way "freedom of the press" equals the freedom to spend money on presses and their output.

No effort to restrict the use of personal moneys in politics is constitutional, and the only constitutional restriction on candidatess use of it is to mandate transparency of campaign finances.

The equal time law were compelled speech, and equally repugnant to the 1st Amendment.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Woa!
Let’s not get carried away.
Any time I spent in Delaware and Maryland they weren’t New England states by any means. (First time I ever had grits - Maryland, course it may have been the first time I saw more than 10 black people all in one location outside of television too.....there weren’t many colored folk up on the ’North Shore’ when I grew up.)

There are, thankfully, only 6 New England states, and each of them, despite what outsiders think, are quite different. Why, I hold no animosity for Maine and New Hampshire and Rhode Island, a small amount for Connecticut and a pretty fair amount for Vermont (which wasn’t ALWAYS a collection of treehuggin idiots) and a great deal of animosity for that California of the East Coast, my un-beloved Bay State.

Just the same as Georgia and Mississippi and Louisiana ain’t the same, even though they’re Southern (and yes, I understand Yankees frequently see them as all the same).

The one advantage of being a Yankee by birth and a Southerner by choice I suppose is being able to appreciate the differences.


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Any time I spent in Delaware and Maryland they weren’t New England states by any means.
I believe the term I used was "northern".
First time I ever had grits - Maryland.
Last time I looked, Maryland wasn’t Delaware.
The one advantage of being a Yankee by birth and a Southerner by choice I suppose is being able to appreciate the differences.
And the one advantage to being Southern by birth and Southern by choice is I know the differences. ;)
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Sure, anything could be a bit cheaper if you simply eliminated overhead by having the government dispense the money instead.
No, no, no, you are missing the point of where the savings comes from. I am not saying it would bne cheaper because the government dispenses the money to fund elections, I am saying that it would be cheaper because of what is currently bought for with the monies that currently fund candidacies.

Let me see if I can spell it out in an oversimplified example;

Bechtel contributes $1,303,765 in soft money and PAC contributions to political candidate campaigns.

USAID awarded the largest of its postwar Iraq contracts to Bechtel Group Inc. April 17. The capital construction contract gives Bechtel an initial award of $34.6 million, but provides for funding of up to $680 million over 18 months subject to Congress’ approval. Bechtel’s primary activities under the contract will include rebuilding power generation facilities, electrical grids, water and sewage systems and airport facilities in Iraq.

Bechtel gives pols $1.3M and receives $680M in taxpayer dollars.

There are caveats here, of course, one being that perhaps these projects needed to be done, and Bechtel is the largest player with the greatest reach, so I can’t say that the money did not need to be spent at all, but then again, if we never invaded Iraq, then yes, I can say that this money NEVER needed to be spent.

My point is that this stinks and is no way to run a government.

I care a great deal about the Constitution and free speech, but I’ll forego the argument supporting the constitutionality of publically financed election for a moment in favor of rationalization. If our constitution is being subverted by interests taking advantage of a constitutional loophole in the system, do you stand by the principal of constitutionality and throw your hands up, or do you address the problem?

For almost 200 years, business money was specifically excluded from campaign financing, until 1974 when the Buckley-Valeo ruling decided that money IS speech. Was our entire government unconstitutional from 1789 to 1974 and only became constitutional since 1974? Now the big question, was our government better when it was unconstitutional?

Let’s look at one single statistic from the period before 1974 and after.

Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (-): 1940–2011
(in millions of dollars)
Year
Outlays
1940 9,468
1941 13,653 44%
1942 35,137 157%
1943 78,555 124%
1944 91,304 16%
1945 92,712 2%
1946 55,232 -40%
1947 34,496 -38%
1948 29,764 -14%
1949 38,835 30%
1950 42,562 10%
1951 45,514 7%
1952 67,686 49%
1953 76,101 12%
1954 70,855 -7%
1955 68,444 -3%
1956 70,640 3%
1957 76,578 8%
1958 82,405 8%
1959 92,098 12%
1960 92,191 0%
1961 97,723 6%
1962 106,821 9%
1963 111,316 4%
1964 118,528 6%
1965 118,228 0%
1966 134,532 14%
1967 157,464 17%
1968 178,134 13%
1969 183,640 3%
1970 195,649 7%
1971 210,172 7%
1972 230,681 10%
1973 245,707 7%
1974 269,359 10%
1975 332,332 23%
1976 371,792 12%
1977 409,218 10%
1978 458,746 12%
1979 504,028 10%
1980 590,941 17%
1981 678,241 15%
1982 745,743 10%
1983 808,364 8%
1984 851,853 5%
1985 946,396 11%
1986 990,441 5%
1987 1,004,083 1%
1988 1,064,481 6%
1989 1,143,829 7%
1990 1,253,130 10%
1991 1,324,331 6%
1992 1,381,649 4%
1993 1,409,522 2%
1994 1,461,907 4%
1995 1,515,884 4%
1996 1,560,608 3%
1997 1,601,307 3%
1998 1,652,685 3%
1999 1,702,035 3%
2000 1,789,216 5%
2001 1,863,190 4%
2002 2,011,153 8%
2003 2,160,117 7%
2004 2,293,006 6%
2005 2,472,205 8%
2006 estimate 2,708,677 10%
2007 estimate 2,770,097 2%
2008 estimate 2,813,592 2%
2009 estimate 2,921,760 4%
2010 estimate 3,060,875 5%
2011 estimate 3,239,769 6%


Do you notice that at the same time money became speech, that speech seems to have had an echo in government?

I suggest Publically financed elections because I believe that is the only constitutional manner in which money, not speech, can be restricted.

I also support bringing back the equal time law.

Cap

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
McQ snorked, or wrote, depending on whether you were in the room:
Wouldn’t be better compared to what, Tom?

This? LOL!
This isn’t bad. 20 or 30 years from now if we stay this course, that’s bad.

Please (pretty please with a cherry on top and I’ll buy you a steak dinner—well $25max), explain how gridlock gets us off the course we’re on.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Hey Cap,

You refreshed after a pause of about twenty minutes or so, right?

It’ll repost if you do that.

You can reselect the URL and go there from another window to get arounf the bug.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Please (pretty please with a cherry on top and I’ll buy you a steak dinner—well $25max), explain how gridlock gets us off the course we’re on.
Republicans are never more Republican (i.e. fiscally conservative/small government) than when they are out of power or have to share power (not to worry, "Longhorn’s" is fine).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Republicans are never more Republican (i.e. fiscally conservative/small government) than when they are out of power or have to share power (not to worry, "Longhorn’s" is fine).
And that’s been true for how many decades, and we’re still on the same path.

Why will it be different this time?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
And that’s been true for how many decades, and we’re still on the same path.
We are? I’m not sure what path you think we’re on, but it must not be the same one I see.

This Republican administration has expanded government and spent more than Bill Clinton did, Tom. Which should provide the clue necessary here.

Bill Clinton/split government/relatively conservative considering what’s happening with this fully Republican government. We even managed to see welfare reform enacted.

Reps argued back then "give us full control and we’ll show you what we can really do".

So the voters did: NCLB, Medicare Part D, etc., etc. Pander, pander, spend, spend, spend.

Sorry, I want the good old Clintonesque days of power sharing, and smaller government/less spending. There’s a natural tension split government provides that makes parties more prone to stick to their ideological principles than full out power. That’s what I want to see. Bickering, fighting and much less government and spending.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Money = speech the same way "freedom of the press" equals the freedom to spend money on presses and their output.
Giving to a political candidate to purchase media, or purchasing media for the benefit of a political candidate is not the same thing as freedom of the press. Freedom of speech - I ask a candidate to support legislation favorable to me.
Freedom of the press - I write an opinion piece endorsing a candidate for office and perhaps hard news where I slant it in favor of a candidate I like.
Our current campaign finance system, otherwise known as bribery - I ask a candidate to support legislation favorable to me and hand him a check for $100,000
No effort to restrict the use of personal moneys in politics is constitutional, and the only constitutional restriction on candidatess use of it is to mandate transparency of campaign finances.
First, Justice Perkins, since we DID restrict political contributions for almost 200 years, I revert to my previous question, was the entire us government unconstitutional for 200 year because money was severely restricted? ANd then the other question, was government better than it is now? If government was better before, then I suggest we need to make it constitutional to restrict money in political campaign (and I mean ALL money, not just money from one side)
The equal time law were compelled speech, and equally repugnant to the 1st Amendment.
The fairness doctrine was held as constitutional each time it was challenged because it applied to broadcast media who were granted frequency use in exchange for dedicating a portion of their broadcasts to the public good, which included providing equal time for points of view on important issues. The airwaves theoretically belong to all of us, and though they are granted for commercial use, there is nothing wrong with requiring an element of public for that wish to use the airwaves. or would you prefer that the airwaves be used by whoever wants to use them, and whoever has the most powerful transmitter in a given frequency wins?
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Freedom of speech - I ask a candidate to support legislation favorable to me.
No that’s the right to petition.

Freedom of speech is spending your resources as you see fit to let other people in the public sphere know what legislation/political positions you support. I infer that you recently resumed posting here. Did you stop in the first place because you were laughed at?
First, Justice Perkins, since we DID restrict political contributions for almost 200 years, I revert to my previous question, was the entire us government unconstitutional for 200 year because money was severely restricted?
I don’t know that we did restrict political expenditures with respect to speech for 200 years. I think that’s a very recent phenomenon. There were laws against literally paying someone to vote for you, and there were laws prohibiting candidates from providing liquor to voters—these last were not enforced. Geo. Washinting provided beer and liquor to voters despite it’s illegality, and it was neither a moral nor a practical hindrance to him. These laws were simply not respected. I hope McCain-Feingold is ignored to death.

However, neither of these classes of laws prohibited contributions to candidacies, and neither prohibited private individuals from spending their own money as they saw fit to propound there own political views. This is what McCain-Feingold does, making it uniquely and abhorrently unconstitutional.
"The airwaves theoretically belong to all of us, and though they are granted for commercial use, there is nothing wrong with requiring an element of public for that wish to use the airwaves. or would you prefer that the airwaves be used by whoever wants to use them, and whoever has the most powerful transmitter in a given frequency wins?"
Firstly, airwaves belong to nobody at all, transmitters do. Secondly, the only theoretically constitutional basis for the national government regulating radio communication arises from the inevitability that radio waves would cross state boundaries, within a state the feds should have no authority with respect to radio communications. With respect to radio communications between states, the limit of the national authority is to place an equal tax on those communications, not to prohibit or determine content.

The national governemnt does not by default acquire new powers as technologies are developed, instead, it must be granted new authority to regulate by amendment to the constitution.

If you take it seriously. You don’t.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Geo. Washinting /= Geo. Washington.

Criminy! Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
If you take it seriously. You don’t.
If you took it seriously, you would have actual knowledge of what you speak and not just opine from what seems logical in your head.
I don’t know that we did restrict political expenditures with respect to speech for 200 years. I think that’s a very recent phenomenon.
1867: Naval Appropriations Bill
The first federal attempt to regulate campaign finance · Prohibited officers and employees of the government from soliciting money from naval yardworkers

1905: Teddy Roosevelt’s Message to Congress
President Theodore Roosevelt proposed that "(a)ll contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law." The proposal, however, included no restrictions on campaign contributions from the people who owned and ran corporations. Roosevelt also called for public financing of federal candidates via their political parties.

1907: Tillman Act
Prohibited corporations and nationally chartered (interstate) banks from making direct financial contributions to federal candidates ·

1940: Hatch Act Amendments
Set limit of $5,000 per year on individual contributions to a federal candidate or political committee (but it didn’t prevent contributors from giving that amount to multiple committees, each working for the same candidate) · Made campaign finance regulations applicable to primaries as well as general elections · Barred contributions to federal candidates from individuals and businesses working for the federal government

1943: Smith-Connally Act
Extended to unions the prohibition on contributions to federal candidates from corporations and interstate banks (following major increase, beginning in 1936, in labor’s use of union dues to support federal candidates)

1947: Taft-Hartley Act
Made permanent the ban on contributions to federal candidates from unions, corporations, and interstate banks, and extended the prohibition to include primaries as well as general elections


Again, I DO take this seriously, and I suspect you do not, since you chosen to guess at what was or was not in effect rather than taking simple steps to KNOW what laws were in place.
Firstly, airwaves belong to nobody at all, transmitters do. Secondly, the only theoretically constitutional basis for the national government regulating radio communication arises from the inevitability that radio waves would cross state boundaries, within a state the feds should have no authority with respect to radio communications. With respect to radio communications between states, the limit of the national authority is to place an equal tax on those communications, not to prohibit or determine content.
Again, this appears to be your opinion, with no basis in law or precedent.

Here is the SCOTUS precedent that contradicts your personal opinion...

"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."
— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

Just because SCOTUS issued an opinion does not mean it is right, but you offer no legal basis contrary to this precedent, nor do you even exhibit any indication that you are aware of the precdent.

So my previous point stands.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
So my previous point stands.
Not really.

Well right off the bat, you haven’t cited any campaign finance restrictions earlier than 1867, so your "200 years" claim is hyperbole at best. more like 139. It doesn’t have the same ring, I kmow, but that’s your problem.
1867: Naval Appropriations Bill
The first federal attempt to regulate campaign finance · Prohibited officers and employees of the government from soliciting money from naval yardworkers.
However, it deals only peripherally with campaign finance reform, but instead was intended to weaken the patronage/spoils system. It attempted to prohibit non-elected government employees from securing their jobs by kicking money back to politicians. In short, bribes were already illegal, this merely confirmed the kickbacks once common were to be treated as bribes. Transparency in the campaign finance context is a sufficient and constitutional remedy in the modern context, fully apprising voters of a quid quo pro.
1905: Teddy Roosevelt’s Message to Congress President Theodore Roosevelt proposed that "(a)ll contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law."
That has nothing to do with this, corporations in fact having no rights.
1907: Tillman Act Prohibited corporations and nationally chartered (interstate) banks from making direct financial contributions to federal candidates ·
Again, business entitities have no rights to speech as such as such.
1940: Hatch Act Amendments
Set limit of $5,000 per year on individual contributions to a federal candidate or political committee (but it didn’t prevent contributors from giving that amount to multiple committees, each working for the same candidate) · Made campaign finance regulations applicable to primaries as well as general elections · Barred contributions to federal candidates from individuals and businesses working for the federal government.
And the $5,000/year limit is unconstitutional, because it applies to individuals, who do have 1st. amendment rights. The fact it was easy to evade the intent of the bill doesn’t change that. A blanket prohibition of contributions from individuals working for the government is also unconstitutional, however, this in no way protects culpable persons from charges of bribery or extortion. Also, being the first flatly unconstitutional measure in your list, but occurring in 1940, the fact it may have been approved of by the Supreme Court does not make it less suspect—beginning around 1937 or so, the Supreme Court has made some remarkably counterfactual decisions.
1943: Smith-Connally Act
Extended to unions the prohibition on contributions to federal candidates from corporations and interstate banks (following major increase, beginning in 1936, in labor’s use of union dues to support federal candidates).
And unions not being individuals, and mebership in them occaisionally being compelled by the state, there is no constitutional impediment to such contributions being prohibited.
1947: Taft-Hartley Act
Made permanent the ban on contributions to federal candidates from unions, corporations, and interstate banks, and extended the prohibition to include primaries as well as general elections.
A reification of previous goals does nothing to change the underlying facts.
Again, I DO take this seriously, and I suspect you do not, since you chosen to guess at what was or was not in effect rather than taking simple steps to KNOW what laws were in place.
Well, no I don’t think you do take it seriously, or at least you do not approach the subject competently. I am aware of the bills you mentioned—however, none of those bills had an unconstitutional intent or means until the 1940 bill you mentioned, also, you do nothing to show my take on "campaign finance reform" as the Founders understood it was in error.
Firstly, airwaves belong to nobody at all, transmitters do. Secondly, the only theoretically constitutional basis for the national government regulating radio communication arises from the inevitability that radio waves would cross state boundaries, within a state the feds should have no authority with respect to radio communications. With respect to radio communications between states, the limit of the national authority is to place an equal tax on those communications, not to prohibit or determine content.
Again, this appears to be your opinion, with no basis in law or precedent.
Actually, the intent of the interstate commerce clause is not impenetrable to people able to read a history book, and in this case it is clear enough what the history of it is that it is not a matter of opinion as to what the history of it is. It’s intent was to create a free trade zone within the United States.
Here is the SCOTUS precedent that contradicts your personal opinion...

"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."
— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.


Just because SCOTUS issued an opinion does not mean it is right, but you offer no legal basis contrary to this precedent, nor do you even exhibit any indication that you are aware of the precdent.
That compelled speech or "equal time" is inconsistent with the 1st amendment is self evident to a rational and just person. You may not qualify.

In this case, the Supereme Court has ruled on the issue at least once that comes to mind, Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of North Carolina, Inc.
"There is certainly some difference between compelled speech and compelled
silence, but in the context of protected speech, the difference is without
constitutional significance, for the First Amendment guarantees “freedom of
speech,” a term necessarily comprising the decision of both what to say and what
not to say."
The SC really screwed up there from the standpoint of being lackeys of the left, they clearly applied the obvious common meaning of the constitution, implicitly threatening the entirety of the leftist edifice.

States are free to set what regulations their constitutions permit them to, so long as they do not attempt something the national governemnt (and by the 14thmendment, the states), are prohibited from doing.

The FCC, by and large, is one of the unconstitutional excresences of the national governemnt which cannot be justified by the constitution.
So my previous point stands.
Yep, it’s standing. Standing like Monty Python’s Black Kniggit.

Standing tall.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
And you, you scholar you, copied your list from http://www.publicintegrity.org/partylines/report.aspx?aid=654, right?

Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries.

I fart in your general direction!

Go away, or I shall taunt you again!

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I fart in your general direction!
I was wondering what that smell was!

That has nothing to do with this, corporations in fact having no rights.
Are you opining again, or have you simply made a decision contrary to SCOTUS because you believe SCOTUS was wrong? In either case, corporations SHOULD NOT have rights, but they have been granted rights in the form of corporate personhood. If corporations have no rights, then why is that we seem incapable of eliminating corporations from influencing the political process? Are we in agreement that corporate personhood is wrong? Are we in disagreement as to whether corporations have been granted (wrongly IMHO) personhood and rights?

I see election finance reform (and publically financed elections) and corporate personhood as the same issue, and I do not believe that one can be fixed without the other.

Richard W. Behan wrote, "Today, the First Amendment protects the right of corporations-as-persons to finance political campaigns and to employ lobbyists, who then specify and redeem the incurred obligations. Democracy has been transformed into a crypto-plutocracy, and public policy is no longer crafted to serve the American people at large. It is shaped instead to maintain, protect, enhance or create opportunities for corporate profit."

I agree with this sentiment, and moreover, even if corporations were excuded from the political process directly, they would bring their power to bear in other ways, and I want to reduce this influence to the greatest extent possible, which is why I support publically financed elections.
That compelled speech or "equal time" is inconsistent with the 1st amendment is self evident to a rational and just person. You may not qualify.
Cute, let’s see which logical fallacy is this? Appeal to Ridicule? Ad Hominem? Ad Populum? In any case, you make no argument whatsoever why it would be self evident that the fairness doctrine violates the 1st Amendment, just that one would have to be irrational not to recognize that it does.

Let me see if I can make this more tangible for you. The public airwaves are limited by the number of frequencies available to be broadcast on. The government does not HAVE to regulate frequency licenses, but because there are limited frequencies, it is in the public’s interest to do so. And since these frequencies are granted for free when the public could charge for these, the public (government) has the right to require that the broadcaster grant a certain amount of broadcasting toward serving the public good. The fairness doctrine is within the scope of that right. Since there are no such limitations on the number of printing presses or newspapers that can be printed, the government does NOT have the right to make same demands on printed media, or for that matter, cable television, since the infrastructure is privately owned and there are ostensible an unlimited number of stations that could be transmitted. The fairness doctrine was NEVER held to be unconstitutional.

Further, although there are far more means in which to access information, none of which should be subject to the fairness doctrine, broadcast media (radio and television) is still the most common means in which people are informed (or misinformed as the case may be). One could argue that even though the number of frequencies is limited, there are still far more broadcasters today than there were in the past. In 1960, there were 4,309 radio and 569 television stations. By 1989, these numbers grew to over 10,000 radio stations and close to 1,400 television stations. However, this growth is misleading. From 1941 to the 1980’s the number of broadcast entities that could be owned by one company were restricted, so as to protect free expression from a monopolization of ownership and potentially a limited number of viewpoints expressed. A single company could not own more than one broadcaster in a market and could not own more than 7 nationwide. Today, there is virtually no limit. So while in 1960 there were over nearly 4000 different companies that owned broadcast radio stations, today 70% of all broadcast radio is owned by 10 companies.

Democracy doesn’t have a prayer when the distribution of information is controlled by such a tiny group.

But hey, if you think that their freedom to own it all outweighs all other concerns, then you have exactly the government and society you deserve.

"I don’t want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper."

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider