The FCC explains the first amendment to the Democratic National Committee.

[DaChew]

The FCC responds to Democrats by explaining that it's unconstitutional for the government to restrict speech.



http://www.boston.com/dailynews/288/politics/FCC_won_t_prevent_airing_of_anP.shtml

[Tony]

Originally posted by DaChew
The FCC responds to Democrats by explaining that it's unconstitutional for the government to restrict speech.



That's like Hitler explaining how wrong it is to kill jews.

[TragicMonkey]

The FCC is crazy. They say nipples, strippers spanking people, and whipped cream licking are bad, while political commercials are good.

Clearly, the FCC is out of touch with America.





And should be spanked by topless strippers.

[Richard G]

The McCain-Feingold law clearly says political speech is illegal. (It is unconstitutional, even though the courts say it isnt.)

[SRW]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
The FCC is crazy. They say nipples, strippers spanking people, and whipped cream licking are bad, while political commercials are good.

Clearly, the FCC is out of touch with America.





And should be spanked by topless strippers.

But only after 9:00 pm central...

[Beerina]

The best part is where they liken the Sinclair broadcast to an "illegal in-kind contribution" to Bush.

See, it's speech, but if we look at it another way it could be considered something illegal, and speech importance takes a back seat to that.

:rollseyes

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Beerina
The best part is where they liken the Sinclair broadcast to an "illegal in-kind contribution" to Bush.

See, it's speech, but if we look at it another way it could be considered something illegal, and speech importance takes a back seat to that.

:rollseyes:
Isn't it weird how liberals insist that speech is money, and therefore covered by campaign finance laws, but when those laws are struck down, they claim that they were struck down on the "absurd" line of reasoning that money is protected by the First Amendment?

[Luke T.]

I wonder how the ACLU will come down on this issue. Or will they be silent?

[Art Vandelay]

I'd say 60% chance it will not be deemed important enought for the ACLU to get involved, 30% chance they will side against the Democrats, 10% chance for them.

[Sushi]

Originally posted by Richard G
The McCain-Feingold law clearly says political speech is illegal. (It is unconstitutional, even though the courts say it isnt.)

THE SUPREME COURT SAYS SO SO IT MUST BE TRUE RIGHT?

[CapelDodger]

It's one of the weirder aspects of the US (to those of us in normal places, and I don't include Italy in that) that democracy is a sacred concept that defines their very being, and politics (the practice of democracy) is a dirty game where it's all about playing around and between the rules to gain any sort of advantage. The US will get its own Berlusconi yet (if it doesn't get an Oliver Cromwell first).

[evildave]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Isn't it weird how liberals insist that speech is money, and therefore covered by campaign finance laws, but when those laws are struck down, they claim that they were struck down on the "absurd" line of reasoning that money is protected by the First Amendment?

So you would claim that 30 second TV spots to reach statewide and nationwide audiences are free? That whole industries specialising in the production and distribution of such advertising are doing it for charity?

Oh, wait... I guess since conservatives believe that deficit spending while cutting federal income and racking up the national debt at frightening new pace doesn't cost people anything, then this is their special definition of "free". Like maxing out all your credit cards to buy toys is "free".

[Sushi]

Originally posted by evildave
Oh, wait... I guess since conservatives believe that deficit spending while cutting federal income and racking up the national debt at frightening new pace doesn't cost people anything, then this is their special definition of "free". Like maxing out all your credit cards to buy toys is "free".

Those aren't conservatives. Those are Republicans.

[evildave]

Thank you. You're right, insofar as 'conservative' by a dictionary use, but I was using 'conservative' in the cultish sense, as Republicans use it, just as 'liberal' to them means anyone left of Joseph McCarthy, Ann Coulter and Rush (oxycontin ain't drug abuse) Limbaugh.

Similar Republican Economic Values include:

9-11 Comission Cost: $15,000,000.00
http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/faq.htm#q5
(This was the investigation of the whole federal government, military, and intelligence services to determine why 9/11 happened.)

Starr Investigation Cost: $52,000,000.00
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ai00283r.pdf
(Whitewater and Bill Clinton's willy.)

[varwoche]

Originally posted by evildave
9-11 Comission Cost: $15,000,000.00
Starr Investigation Cost: $52,000,000.00
Fascinating numbers.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by evildave
So you would claim that 30 second TV spots to reach statewide and nationwide audiences are free? That whole industries specialising in the production and distribution of such advertising are doing it for charity?
Are newspapers produced by charities? Are magazines? TV shows? Are you saying that any speech that involves money is not covered by the First Amendment? See, I can attack strawmen just as well as you can. I don't see how you could possibly get what you got from my post.

[evildave]

Once again, to put YOUR ad in a newspaper, on the radio, etc. costs MONEY.

It's very simple.

If you BUY a politician an airplane to fly them around to spread their word, or lease out places for them to speak for free, or pay for their lodging and food, or provide campaign materials and consumables for them, that's all political contributions.

Now follow this closely, because I can tell you're pretty dim: The MONEY you SPENT to get the TV stations, radio stations, newspapers, etc. to carry your ADVERTISEMENTS is a political contribution, just as providing other services to a political party or campaign is.

Advertising costs money.

If you BUY advertising for a politician or political party, that's a political contribution.

Of course, leave it to a right-winger to confuse money laundering with honest politics (an oxymoron in America to be sure).

[epepke]

Originally posted by DaChew
The FCC responds to Democrats by explaining that it's unconstitutional for the government to restrict speech.

The McCain-Feingold bill says otherwise.

Now, personally, I think that the McCain-Feingold bill is a great steaming turd. Ultimately, though, either the Micropublicans and the Democrites and everybody else should be allowed to air their spew, or else none of them.

[evildave]

Agreed. Anybody should be allowed to pour as much of their personal or corporate wealth into backing political parties and candidates - so long as the money is honestly reported, and can be traced back.

For instance, if a corporation I owned stocks in gave a sizable chunk of cash to the RNC, I'd like to know that. If they don't want me playing politics with my investment dollar, they can abstain from playing politics with my dividends.

Similarly, it would be interesting to find out how much money and services Haliburton and other such companies have spent on campaigns and individuals within the government.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by evildave
If you BUY advertising for a politician or political party, that's a political contribution.
What you seem to have completely missed is that my point is that if you are going to insist that buying advertisement for a politician or political party is a political contribution, then it necessarily follows that political contributions can be protected by the First Amendment. Perhaps if you spent less time insulting people and stating obvious statements in a condescending manner, and instead actually tried to understand what they're trying to say, you would have been able to figure this out for yourself. You see, you are declaring that speech is money. Very little speech is free, therefore, speech is money. But when liberals criticize rulings that have struck down campaign finance laws, they often say that the court has declared money to be speech. The liberals in question then go on to deride this position, saying that money and speech are completely different categories, and the First Amendment only applies to the latter. So would you agree that these people are in error?

I have never disputed the claim that speech often costs money, and yet you insist that speech costs money in a manner that suggests that I was unaware of this fact. This is either evidence of your poor comprehension of my position, or else a deliberate strawman. What I am saying is that there is the belief that speech is money. There is also the belief that money is not protected by the First Amendment. Those two beliefs are incompatible, and anyone who holds both of them is engaging in equivocation. If speech is money, than money is speech. You can't have it go one way, and not the other.

Of course, leave it to a right-winger to confuse money laundering with honest politics (an oxymoron in America to be sure).
Are you saying that I'm a right-winger, and that I'm confusing money laundering with honest politics?

[evildave]

No, I'm declaring that paying for advertising for someone else is exactly the same thing as giving them the equivalent money.

1. It would cost the RNC $1,000,000 to run a 30 second nationwide prime-time commercial on all the network.

2. Instead of giving the RNC $1,000,000, you pay to air their commercial for them.

3. The RNC has $1,000,000 to spend in another way.

If you had a scam like this for a business to pay for advertising for another business in order to evade taxes for transferring that money, the IRS would be all over you. If either of those business were publicly traded, the SEC would join in.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by DaChew
The FCC responds to Democrats by explaining that it's unconstitutional for the government to restrict speech.



http://www.boston.com/dailynews/288/politics/FCC_won_t_prevent_airing_of_anP.shtml I don't know what the Boston paper may have written, since the item is apparently gone. But the FCC had been responding to a request that hasn’t been made. No one asked it to restrict free speech – just to investigate Sinclair according to FCC regulations.

[DaChew]

Originally posted by Lemastre
I don't know what the Boston paper may have written, since the item is apparently gone. But the FCC had been responding to a request that hasn’t been made. No one asked it to restrict free speech – just to investigate Sinclair according to FCC regulations.

Yes, the FCC was asked to block Sinclair's broadcast of the documentary. The FCC responded that they do not and have not restrained broadcasters prior to an item's broadcast. The job of the FCC is to respond to complaints concerning items already broadcast. To excercise prior restraint on a broadcaster would be a violation of the first amendment and outside the power of the FCC. The FCC will impose fines and other penalties on a broadcaster only after they've investigated a complaint concerning something already broadcast and found the broadcast to be in violation of FCC rules.

[DaChew]

Here is the text of the letter sent by Democrats to the FCC (I've bolded the most interesting text:



October 9, 2004

The Honorable Michael Powell

Chairman

Federal Communications Commission

445 12th Street, S.W.

Room 8-A204A

Washington, DC 20554

Dear Chairman Powell:

We write to express our concern over a recent LA Times article (attached) regarding the planned preemption of regular station programming by the Sinclair Broadcast Group in favor of an anti-Kerry attack ad expected to last approximately 90 minutes, and to ask that you look into this matter to determine whether it represents a proper use of public airwaves or if, instead, it would violate fairness rules now in place.

The attached article alleges that Sinclair Broadcasting has ordered its stations, including affiliates of Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, WB and UPN, to preempt their regular programming and replace it with material prepared for political use, shortly prior to the November 2 election. To allow a broadcasting company to air such a blatantly partisan attack in lieu of regular programming, and to classify that attack as "news programming" as has been suggested, would violate the spirit, and we think the text, of current law and regulation.

Additionally, while there is some indication that Senator Kerry may be invited to a panel discussion following the airing of this "program" in order to satisfy fairness regulations, it seems clear to us that any such invitation would be merely a transparent attempt to circumvent the fine print of the law and proceed with this partisan plan. Equal time rules exist for a purpose - to prevent the airing of one-sided political content without equal response time given to the opposing view or candidate. In this case, it is impossible to imagine how the equal time rules would be satisfied if this plan is allowed to go forward.

We urge you to investigate this matter immediately, and would appreciate a response as to whether you will, in fact, investigate these allegations."




So, yes, the FCC was being asked if they should "allow" the broadcast to go forward. Obviously, since it's "impossible to imagine how the equal time rules would be satisfied..." the only remedy would be for the FCC to forbid the broadcast by threatening Sinclair with penalties.

[Luke T.]

Has anyone ever bitched about the fact that newspapers endorse candidates? What's the difference between that and this TV show? Every objection made about the TV show in this topic could just as easily apply to a newspaper endorsement of Kerry or Bush, when you get right down to it.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Has anyone ever bitched about the fact that newspapers endorse candidates? What's the difference between that and this TV show? Every objection made about the TV show in this topic could just as easily apply to a newspaper endorsement of Kerry or Bush, when you get right down to it.

Keep in mind that newspapers have Opinion pages, which is supposed to be dedicated to opinions. That's where they place their endorsements.

Sometimes TV news does have an "Editorial" comment, but it is announced as such.

[Art Vandelay]

evildave
No, I'm declaring that paying for advertising for someone else is exactly the same thing as giving them the equivalent money.
In that case, you are wrong. Candidates cannot allocate campaign contributions for private use. An outright gift, however, can be used however the recipient chooses. Furthermore, engaging in speech is protected by the First Amendment, and giving gifts is not. The idea that exercising one's rights in a way that benefits another person is "exactly the same" as giving a gift to that person is rather disturbing, especially since it is often used to justify taking rights away.

According to your logic, if you were going to pay the RNC a million dollars to run an ad, but the RNC runs it before you get around to giving the money, that is exactly the same thing as if the RNC gave you a million dollars. So are you going to demand that everyone who didn't give a million dollars declare an extra million dollars on their income tax form?

If you had a scam like this for a business to pay for advertising for another business in order to evade taxes for transferring that money, the IRS would be all over you.
If no explicit quid pro quo were established, one would have a very strong First Amendment case. I wonder if any such cases have been tried.

Originally posted by Luke T.
Has anyone ever bitched about the fact that newspapers endorse candidates? What's the difference between that and this TV show? Every objection made about the TV show in this topic could just as easily apply to a newspaper endorsement of Kerry or Bush, when you get right down to it.
The USSC has ruled that the First Amendment does not fully apply to broadcast television.