Damned Democunts

[Thumpalumpacus]

I agree that Citizens United was a major misstep. I don't think of hampering the ability of a corporation to buy adtime is hampering the free speech of an individual, and I think Scalia et al screwed the pooch on that decision big-time. I also agree (with what I think you're getting at) that like churches which must remain apolitical in order to retain their non-profit charter, corporations too ought to be required to remain apolitical in order to receive the legal benefits of incorporating. No matter what the SCOTUS says, corporations aren't people. They are conglomerations of people with one purpose in mind: maximizing profits for shareholders. Allowing the political process to be suborned by the profit motive is the road to ruin.

What I don't like about this proposal is that it would indeed hamper the ability of individuals to express their own opinions. Right, wrong, or indifferent, honest or deceitful, so long as it doesn't harm the safety of other citizens, the right to free speech ought not be infringed by anyone -- especially the government itself. Who would decide what is misleading? Could we be certain that that government offical would be perfectly objective and not bias his decision in favor of the political party which brought about his appointment? Of course not. That inherent conflict of interest makes this proposal incredibly dangerous to democracy -- just as dangerous as Citizens United, in its own way.

---

I don't like the proposal one bit. I don't see that expanding the government's control of speech is a good thing. The proposal is to control political content that is not even paid-for. It would be the equivalent of the Crown restricting Paine's ability to write pamphlets.

It doesn't help that the chairman's motivation is so transparently political in itself; this wasn't a problem until it impacted his boss. It appears that he's willing to encroach upon a right for partisan advantage, and I'm tired of that shit.

What is it with republicans and lying?

Con·trol
verb \kən-ˈtrōl\
: to direct the behavior of (a person or animal) : to cause (a person or animal) to do what you want

There are no restrictive clauses mentioned at all. That is all in your head, planted there by faux news. Having to say that you're not a campaign committee who's using illegal funds is not a restriction of speech anymore than paying your income tax to the IRS. The content is not curtailed by quantity or amplitude.

If you disagree, give us a fucking citation, and if you can, we'll agree with you. If you can't you're a typical Limbaughbot.

Firstly, if you're going to go with personal attacks, this conversation is not worth worth my time. Either you can discuss this civilly, or you cannot. If you cannot, I will end my side of this conversation and you can back to whatever it is you were doing, because I'm not interested in Internet dick-waving, and you shouldn't be, either.

Secondly, the link in the OP was to the Washington Examiner, not Fox News. Read the matter under discussion first, and then comment; that is the advisable order of operations.

Thirdly, in that article is this passage:

The power play followed a deadlocked 3-3 vote on whether an Ohio anti-President Obama Internet campaign featuring two videos violated FEC rules when it did not report its finances or offer a disclosure on the ads. The ads were placed for free on YouTube and were not paid advertising.

Under a 2006 FEC rule, free political videos and advocacy sites have been free of regulation in a bid to boost voter participation in politics. Only Internet videos that are placed for a fee on websites, such as the Washington Examiner, are regulated just like normal TV ads.

Clearly, the proposal is to extend FEC regulation to free political ads.

Your point that "no restrictive clauses are mentioned at all" is clearly disingenuous. The very purpose of regulating an outlet is to impose restrictions upon it.

If a private person makes a political statement on his or her blog, should that be subject to regulation? Should that person be required to behave in the same manner, with the same disclosures, as a PAC? Why or why not?

Me, I don't think a private individual owes the government jack-shit for an explanation about the expression of any opinion.

Finally, the last sentence in your post reveals an evacuated-middle fallacy going on in your thinking. In politics as with anything else, nothing is either-or. If you wish to practice such simplistic thinking, have at it. That doesn't for a moment mean I'm obliged to honor such arbitrary, and poorly-thought-out, divisions.