TheAgitator.com
Oliver, Edwards, CFR
Wednesday, March 5th, 2003Dan Lipps, in the comments section, referring to Oliver Willis’ John Edwards fansite:
Be careful, Oliver. You might be setting yourself up for a steep FEC fine.How will the campaign finance laws treat such a website? Iâm guessing itâs illegal to set up a site dedicated to helping elect Sen. Edwards that encourages donations and provides links to donations forms, etc.
After all, donât we have to quantify Oliverâs âcontributionâ to the Edwards campaign? Whatâs the value of Oliverâs time? Whatâs the cost of running the website through 11/04? Must Oliver register or file for some other legal status to maintain such an âorganizationâ that encourages campaign contributions?
All of these questions point to the stupidity of the current campaign finance system which limits political speech. Oliver should have the constitutional right to spend all of his free time campaigning for Senator Edwards — however misguided that may seem!
Of course, the funny part of all this is that Sen. Edwards co-sponsored McCain-Feingold. How ironic.
Perhaps someone with some familiarity with last year’s Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act can fill us in here. But it seems to me that if Oliver owned a TV station — and not a website — he’d be forbidden from producing and/or airing pro-Edwards ads free of charge. Why would a website be any different?
I think it would be wonderful if McCain-Feingold required Oliver to take down his site. Not because of any animus toward Oliver, who seems like a nice guy. But because I love the thought of an Edwards-sponsored bill silencing Edwards-supportive speech.
I think this is appropriate:
From “The Onion”
U.S. Capitol Cleaning Turns Up
Long-Lost Constitution
WASHINGTON, DCâLost for nearly two years, the U.S. Constitution was found Tuesday behind a couch in the Governor’s Reception Room. “Wow, I forgot all about that thing,” said U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), who found the historic document while vacuuming. “Nobody knew what happened to it. Guess it must’ve fallen back there during a meeting.” After making the find, Dodd spent several minutes rereading some of his favorite old amendments.
I support McCain-Feingold. I dislike Edwards and would love to have his site taken down, but there is no way that you can use McCain-Feingold to do so.
M-F is simply a monetary donation limit, not time or effort. The Supreme Court has ruled those as legal saying that the free speech aspect is the fact that there is a donation, not the amount. (i.e. Just because someone gives more money does not mean that they support a candidate more, it just means that they have more to give.) You show your support publicly by making the donation in the first place.
On top of that it only limits the amount of money that you can contribute to “issue ads” when those “issue ads” are within a certain time period before the election. Issue groups could still run issue ads without mentioning the name of a candidate (saying something to the effect of “don’t vote for a candidate who doesn’t support this issue” and then pointing the viewer to a website that explains who does or does not support that issue.)
Finally, the M-F does not limit the amount of money an individual can spend, it only limits the amount of money an interest group can take from any single individual and spend on issue ads mentioning the candidate within the set period of time before the election. As long as they keep the money separate an individual can donate as much as he wants to the group to make issue ads that don’t mention a candidate by name. Plus he can spend as much as he wants supporting a candidate, he just can’t coordinate with the campaign (nor interest groups I believe.)
Sorry, in the 3rd paragraph on my last post it should have read:
M-F limits the amount you can contribute to an interest group to run “issue ads” when those issue ads mention a specific candidate by name and are within the certain timeframe before the election.
A fairly important distinction that was lost in my typing.
the above post is correct. M-F simply supplements the 1976 Sup. Ct. decision which limited contribututions and not expenditures. M-F also further details the do’s and don’t(s) come election time, particularly in that 60-day window when it becomes murky whether or not an issue ad specifically directs a viewer to vote for or against a candidate or whether it is implied.
On a more serious note, is it just me or does Radley seem to have a…how shall I put this..hard-on for Edwards? There are probably more posts about the affectionately dubbed (by Radley) “Senator Handsome” than there are about Bush. Including three in the past 24 hours! What is with this schoolgirl crush? I think Edwards, er–I mean Sen. Handsome, should look into a restraining order.
Why is this person so afraid to sign his name?
So would it be illegal for a billionaire to simply pay a guy top dollar to produce a website, print a “newspaper,” etc., for the specific purpose of furthering a candidate?
And why should issue ads be illegal anyway, Mr. No-name?
There are 2 different no-names actually.
And no, it would not be illegal for someone to pay someone else to print a newspaper or make and run a tv commercial.
The only thing that would be illegal is for the billionaire to pool money with someone else to do those things when the ads they create mention a specific candidate within the 60 window before the election.
True issue ads should not be illegal - nor are they under M-F. The only ads that are limited are ones that purport to be “issue ads” but are actually encouraging the election or defeat of a candidate (by specifically mentioning a candidate by name) and are within the 60 day window. Even then the ads are not illegal - it is only illegal to take more than a certain amount of money from any one person to run those particular types of ads.
I’ll let Radley speak for himself, but the reason I share his aversion to Senator Handsome is that John Edwards represents so much of what is wrong in our political system.
His party puts down those who do not subordinate their desire for personal success to the flawed ideology of wealth redistribution, as greedy and evil.
Yet, Senator Handsome has made millions upon millions, not by the honest delivery of goods and services in the marketplace, but by manipulating the emotions of juries so that they apply “remedies” to “injustices” that are far out of proportion to any actual harm that is caused.
He personally benefits “handsomely” by successfully manipulating this flawed system, when a true leader would demand its correction.
In the process, he is driving up the cost of living for everyone — including the “common people” he claims to champion.
Eww.
Edwards is not even cute, let alone handsome. He’s really very nerdy.
Believe me — I’m a chick.
“His party puts down those who do not subordinate their desire for personal success to the flawed ideology of wealth redistribution, as greedy and evil.”
Pardon me if I don’t buy into the typical libertarian/conservative claptrap. While I can’t recall any specific instances of Democrats “putting down”, as you say, the wealthy elite of this country, I do know that they oppose any tax reform that subordinates larger,, more pressing issues, i.e. Medicare, Soc. Sec., deficit reduction. Also, it may have something to do with the fact that supply-side tax cuts are simply bad economic policy. Don’t take my word for it—listen to such prominent Democrats as former Treasury Sec. Paul O’Neill and Alan Greenspan, in addition to 14 nobel laureats in economics and the economist who even invented the Laffer curve!(look it up, it’s true). I guess if Democrats oppose cuts that will vastly increase the deficit, which causes interest rates to rise and forces states to raise taxes to make up the difference in revenue, then I guess maybe they are “putting down” the horribly vicitimized elite.
“Yet, Senator Handsome has made millions upon millions, not by the honest delivery of goods and services in the marketplace, but by manipulating the emotions of juries so that they apply “remedies” to “injustices” that are far out of proportion to any actual harm that is caused.”
So it’s honest delivery of goods and services you are interested in, huh? How about Bush’s former buddy Ken Lay, whose company staged an energy crisis in Ca. in order to manipulate power prices? Read the lawsuit for more info. I also will not bore you with a rehash of 2001’s accounting fraud/millions-of-employees-losing-life-savings scandal. This would not be so depressing if it were not coupled with the fact that Enron was the archtype for modern American business, at least according to its cohorts in the Bush administration. Also, let’s not forget the Clinton-era executive order that Bush immediately repealed which forbade federal contracts to companies that have violated all sorts of safety, environmental, and labor rules and regulations. Honest, my sweet ass.
As far as your tirade against trial lawyers, I saw that coming a mile away. (Fairly predictable with this crowd). Apparently you do not understand how tort litigation functions. Cases that have no merit are tossed out before trial, or if not, then on appeal. Even supposedly outlandish judgments are regularly diminished on appeal as well. Also, I would recommend you research cases Edwards has litigated before jumping to conclusions to whether the compensation is not in proportion to the actual injury. I realize that accountability is not a highly favored attribute in the corporate-libertarian worldview, but sometimes people are held responsible for their actions. See, I can lecture, too.
1. It’s interesting Democrats seem to prefer opposing spending cuts that would appear to shrink the deficit.
2. Enron is no model of how any typical American business that delivers goods or services.
3. “Cases that have no merit are tossed out before trial, or if not, then on appeal.” So do all the costs a defendant incurs trying to protect himself to a meritless case evaporate? And do you suppose a few personal-injury/class-action lawsuits are filed by lawyers who have less of a love for the common man than a love for what his take will be?
I think No-name-2 is really a fatter version of Michael Moore. It takes a bigger idiot than I’ve run into yet in person to make statements like that. I don’t know where to start.
Ex: “Cases that have no merit are tossed out before trial, or if not, then on appeal.” Yeah, uh huh, like that McDonalds coffee case or the silly gun maker lawsuits. Everyone knows that trial lawyers are scum, including even the trial lawyers (that’s the scary part, that they don’t care).
As for Radley, yes, he is in love with Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards is nothing but a male version of a bimbo, a “mimbo” if you will (apologies to the writers of Seinfeld ;-}
Just joking, Mr. Handsome Agitator.
No-Name 2,
When you say Ken Lay, do you really mean Rubin’s buddy, since Rubin pleaded Bush to bail Enron out. Enron was a bipartisan political contributor.
Also, many judges come from a background as a trial lawyer as well, so they are hesitant to throw many ridiculous cases out.
No-name 2:
Actually, it is you who is dishing out the claptrap — the same old Leftist song-and-dance.
Time for a little dissassembly:
“While I can’t recall any specific instances of Democrats “putting down”, as you say, the wealthy elite of this country …”
How about Richard Gephardt’s reference to the rich as “winners in life’s lottery” — as if hard work and smart thinking had nothing to do with it.
“I do know that they oppose any tax reform that subordinates larger,, more pressing issues, i.e. Medicare, Soc. Sec., deficit reduction.”
If these people are great leaders, then why do they keep trying the same approach that history has shown as unworkable … throwing money at problems that government is structurally incapable of solving? They could reduce the defecit just by ending this practice — without taking more of your and my (not their!) money.
And, why do they insist that we keep a Social Security system that gives people far, far less in retirement than if they had that money placed in secure investments? Aren’t they innovative enough to come up with a system that will at least equal the stock market in building a nest egg?
“Also, it may have something to do with the fact that supply-side tax cuts are simply bad economic policy.”
While it may be politically expedient to put down supply-side economics, it did increase government revenues while boosting the economy. I remember the 1970’s and the 1980’s — and I definitely was better off in the 1980’s. I’ll read Laffer’s statements again before I’ll dismiss his curve as invalid — history shows that it does work.
“I guess if Democrats oppose cuts that will vastly increase the deficit, which causes interest rates to rise and forces states to raise taxes to make up the difference in revenue, then I guess maybe they are “putting down” the horribly vicitimized elite.”
1> How about these states and the federal government exercising some fiscal restraint, instead of just throwing money on problems?
2> You do not understand how Democratic policies of wealth redistribution actually reduce the amount of wealth available for ALL OF US to share, by taking the resources away from the most productive among us!! Democratic policies REDUCE tax revenue, by increasing the burden on the most productive — the ones who create the jobs, and expand (not hoard) the wealth.
Regarding your equation of all businesses to Enron, Worldcom et. al. — this refusal to differentiate between honest businessmen and those who manipulate the system is why the policies of the Democratic Party kill prosperity. And do not forget that the present financial crisis started on Clinton’s watch — in fact, one could say that his redefinitions of truth set the climate for repeat performances by Ken Lay and others, in the business world. If Clinton could get away with it, why couldn’t they?
“Also, let’s not forget the Clinton-era executive order that Bush immediately repealed which forbade federal contracts to companies that have violated all sorts of safety, environmental, and labor rules and regulations.”
When rules have an objective basis, I’ll support them — unfortunately, when you look at the results of these rules vs. their declared intent, there is quite a divergence. Frankly, a lot of these rules are kept around to redistribute wealth and reward the political supporters of the Left.
As for the trial lawyers, other posters are dealing with that quite well, so I’ll not waste server space reinforcing their sound conclusions.
I will say this, though … even if Edwards is pursuing honest cases (which I seriously doubt), he is doing NOTHING to curb the abuses in the system — abuses that have made the very practice of primary-care medicine too costly in some places in this nation for doctors to responsibly engage in. What kind of leadership is that — from somebody who knows that system inside and out?
“I realize that accountability is not a highly favored attribute in the corporate-libertarian worldview, but sometimes people are held responsible for their actions.
To the Leftist, responsibility only exists above a certain economic level, and increases with the depth of the pockets.
However, we must recognize that greed and self-serving agendas are not the exclusive property of those whose publically-stated intention is to make a profit. Even “non-profit” entities like social activists can manipulate the system to personally prosper, if we let them.
Even the needy can be greedy — if they take from others what they could get by their own efforts, regardless of the relative levels of wealth involved.
Where is the accountability of the Left for wasting $3 Trillion on the Great Society programs that perpetuated poverty instead of ending it?
Where is the accountability of the Left for their aversion to the use of American force — which led to the very proxy wars and support of dictatorships they say they despise?
Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that responsibility is an equal-opportunity employer — for when everyone is doing his part, prosperity and peace increases for us all.