From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sat Dec 13 2003 - 19:13:22 GMT
Steve et al,
One correction: the McCain-Feingold bill actually increased the amount an
individual could contribute to a campaign (hard money), from $1000 to $2000.
The $1000 restriction has been in place for decades (I think). What the bill
does that has the ACLU and National Rifle Association in bed together is
restrict how much so-called soft money, they can use to influence a
campaign, so the bill is a restriction on the use of money by special
interests, while individuals have been restricted for some time.
I agree with Steve that the Supreme Court ruling is an attempt to control
the influence of money on politics, and not an attack on free speech.
- Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Peterson" < >
To: < >
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Re: MD Intellect attacks free speech
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> > This should be causing *more* outrage and shock. It's a sad commentary
on the
> > public that most don't even realize how serious this is. Let's call it
what
> > it is: the most blatant, direct assault on the first amendment, ever.
When
> Rush
> > Lim and the ACLU are on the same side, something is clearly wrong.
> > Jon
>
> An example of a blatant attack on the first amendment right to free speech
> would be to throw you in jail for critizing the Supreme Court's decision.
In
> that case I'd be more than outraged, too. This is not such an attack
unless
> you can convince me that money really does equal speech. This equation is
> thrown around as a truism, but I don't buy it. (In the MOQ I think "money"
> refers to a social pattern while speech refers to intellectual patterns.)
>
> This decision is not an attack on free speech since, as ever, we are all
free
> to say anything that could be said before. We just can't donate more than
> $2000 to our favorite candidate's campaign. This law is an attempt to
limit
> wealth-based political power. Since wealth is a social pattern, this may
be a
> moral thing for the Supreme Court to do so long as this law remakes social
> stuctures to allow for greater intellectual freedom. I could be comvinced
that
> campaign finance reform does not provide this benefit and is therefore a
bad
> idea, but outrage about loss of free speech rights seems inappropriate.
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries -
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 13 2003 - 19:21:21 GMT