From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Dec 14 2003 - 21:54:20 GMT
Scott, Steve, Platt and all voters:
Scalia said:
"The premise of the First Amendment is that the American people are neither
sheep nor fools, and hence fully capable of considering both the substance
of the speech presented to them and its proximate and ultimate source."
dmb says:
I don't buy it. This is clever, because it paints those who would object to
deceptive political ads as elitist snobs who think Americans are foolish
sheep. But the truth is that very few Americans have the time or inclination
to investigate the veracity of political ads - or any kind of ad. And even
if they did, politicians and advertisers have become very, very good at what
they do. For example, because of the millions spent on advertisers and
public relations agencies, the Bush Administration managed to convince 70%
of the American public that Iraq's government was connected to the attacks
on 9/11. And for a more general and long term example, since 1980 the
candidate with the most money has won the nomination. To suggest that the
American public is immune to the effects of political money and the
advertising it can buy simply defies the facts. Of course people are
persuaded. If they weren't, advertising and public relations wouldn't be a
multi-billion dollar industry.
Steve said:
The "proximate and ultimate source" part sounds significant. Does that refer
to requiring candidates to attach their names to their negative adds? That
sounds like a good idea to me.
dmb says:
Yea, I think that's a big part of the problem. For example, the coal of oil
industry will file some papers and form a phony organization that calls
itself something like, "Citizens for Responsible Air Pollution Policies" and
then run ads under that name pushing the interests of energy companies. The
viewers will probably never find out that "CRAPP" has virtually nothing to
do with citizens nor responsible policies. Such fictions created to disguise
the ad's actual origins and are nothing more than expensive and
sophisticated LIES. I believe these tactics are much harder to employ under
McCain-Feingold, and that's a good thing.
Scott wrote:
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. ...
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, ...
dmb says:
Yea, I think that's right. And its not even much of a restriction. The law
only disallows such organizations from advertising on the eve of elections;
I think 30 days bfore a primary and 60 days before a general election. Or
maybe its the other way around. In any case, the idea here is simply to
allow enough time for the actual candidates to respond to last minute
attacks in the mass media. And of course none of this keeps individuals from
saying whatever they like. Campaign finance laws don't restrict speech, they
restrict power. It only an attempt to make things more fair in the market
place of ideas. As I understand it, money and power ought not be allowed to
control the free exchange of ideas becasue that is a matter of social levels
values controling intellectual level ideas, which is a minor form of evil.
And as far as I can tell, Scalia and Holden are almost always on the wrong
side of this equation.
Thanks.
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 - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 : Sun Dec 14 2003 - 21:56:03 GMT