tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post6663813320972079788..comments2023-09-15T04:27:57.129-04:00Comments on Commentarama: Take A Look, Professor ObamaAndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-57800555839398205372010-01-29T22:53:05.410-05:002010-01-29T22:53:05.410-05:00Joel: It's hard to predict. Clearly, it'...Joel: It's hard to predict. Clearly, it's likely there will be more ads. As the Court pointed out, if GE or the SEIU runs an add, it has to be clearly attributed to them within the body of the ad (usually at the very end). 501s will continue to do their own thing ("swiftboating" poor innocents, LOL) but will probably spend more time and energy on the big ads. <br /><br />There's now much less incentive to be devious about the source and amount of money being spent on campaigns and candidates by legal entities formerly using tricks to skirt the law. It's certainly no guarantee of transparency, but it's a bold step forward.<br /><br />The one thing it will do is stir up free speech, and that's the whole point. I know the SEIU will lie, for instance, but now an employers' group can freely run an ad that counters the SEIU ad. If the FEC does its job, and the organizations that spot the lies do their jobs, this will be a great blow for freedom of political speech.<br /><br />I'm also not a fan of the "money corrupts" philosophy. I'm old-school--Money is the mother's milk of politics. And that's a realistic approach today. Free speech on a national scale is not free--it's very expensive. More of that money can now be collected, openly and up-front and used to stimulate the marketplace of ideas.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-29864329867090611052010-01-26T17:14:05.242-05:002010-01-26T17:14:05.242-05:00LawHawk,
What will be the result of this change o...LawHawk,<br /><br />What will be the result of this change of playing fields?<br /><br />Will there be more ads and Documentaries?<br /><br />Will there be more transparency?<br /><br />Will the MSM hold be weakened still more?<br /><br />I do know that Federal Election Commission has less power. Which means the incumbents have less power for their message to prevail and the people have more power for their message to be heard.<br /><br />Other than that, I don't know.Joel Farnhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15856960977033430002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-46436576124142282232010-01-26T09:57:36.031-05:002010-01-26T09:57:36.031-05:00Yeah Lawhawk, that’s supposed to be the top contri...Yeah Lawhawk, that’s supposed to be the top contributors over the past twenty years, and I would hazard to guess that the number would rise substantially if man hours were included. But, you can look at a list like that, and see why the left doesn’t want a level playing field. Their position is tenuous with all the cards.StanHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07395708786509590321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-26829785151794446392010-01-26T09:40:17.953-05:002010-01-26T09:40:17.953-05:00StanH: Thanks for putting those stats together. ...StanH: Thanks for putting those stats together. Political Action Committees will probably continue to play a big role. But "non-connected" PACs will decrease in number since they won't have to hide their funding sources. Still, given the nature of dirty politics, I'm sure some PACs will continue to blossom without making it clear who is actually behind them. <br /><br />Just as a side note, the Communications Worker that you listed is the same union that was the subject of the <i>Beck</i> case which restricted unions to using dues for labor organizing and administration only. Anything above that sum which is used by the union for politics must be from "voluntary" contributions from the workers. If they file "Beck Statements" they are supposed to have their dues reduced by the percentage of the dues that the union uses for politics. The unions always claim that they use 3 to 5% at most, while every suit filed by the National Right to Work Foundation has proved they actually spend 40 to 60%, then lie about it.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-58882145355058413702010-01-26T08:40:41.659-05:002010-01-26T08:40:41.659-05:00Great article Andrew, and points out the absurdity...Great article Andrew, and points out the absurdity that is Barry. Corporations get around this unbalance using 527 groups, money always trickles into politics. Sorry for the cut-n-paste, but illustrates the disparity on so called political speech. <br /><br />1 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $39,947,843 98% 1% Solidly Dem (over 90%) <br />2 AT&T Inc $39,772,431 43% 55% Between 40% and 59% to both parties <br />3 National Assn of Realtors $33,280,206 47% 52% Between 40% and 59% to both parties <br />4 Goldman Sachs $29,588,362 63% 36% Leans Dem (60%-69%) <br />5 American Assn for Justice $29,520,389 90% 9% Solidly Dem (over 90%) <br />6 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $28,733,734 97% 2% Solidly Dem (over 90%) <br />7 National Education Assn $28,388,334 93% 6% Solidly Dem (over 90%) <br />8 Laborers' Union $26,881,889 91% 7% Solidly Dem (over 90%) <br />9 Service Employees International Union $26,719,663 95% 3% Solidly Dem (over 90%) <br />10 Carpenters & Joiners Union $25,995,149 90% 9% Solidly Dem (over 90%) <br />11 Teamsters Union $25,627,772 92% 6% Solidly Dem (over 90%) <br />12 Communications Workers of America $25,404,269 99% 0% Solidly Dem (over 90%) <br />13 American Medical Assn $25,235,971 38% 61% Leans Repub (60%-72%) <br />14 American Federation of Teachers $24,969,593 98% 0% Solidly Dem (over 90%) <br />15 Citigroup Inc $24,784,983 49% 50% Between 40% and 59% to both parties <br />16 United Auto Workers $24,634,120 98% 0% Solidly Dem (over 90%) <br />17 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $23,548,086 98% 0% Solidly Dem (over 90%) <br />18 Altria Group $23,264,991 27% 72% Leans Repub (60%-72%) <br />19 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $22,926,107 98% 1% Solidly Dem (over 90%) <br />20 National Auto Dealers Assn $22,733,608 31% 68% Leans Repub (60%-72%)StanHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07395708786509590321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-5424019069486542632010-01-25T23:00:59.228-05:002010-01-25T23:00:59.228-05:00CalFed: I expect that total trashing of a bedrock...CalFed: I expect that total trashing of a bedrock constitution from a dictator, but the president of the United States who claims to have been a Harvard Law editor and a law school instructor in constitutional law should know better. Obviously, he doesn't, or he's a worse demagogue than we even thought.<br /><br />I think our readers "get it," but I have to see comments to be sure. Without that, I can only assume the message has gotten across.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-6390332741590505282010-01-25T22:54:55.835-05:002010-01-25T22:54:55.835-05:00Lawhawk. Good explanation of Obama's thinking...Lawhawk. Good explanation of Obama's thinking, or lack of it. I'm sure part of it is that horrible "living Constitution" craziness. They've been using that expression so long that they've really come to believe it means the Constitution is just another law, to be changed by simple legislation or executive order. Professor of law, phooey.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02284025222779154243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-82760742761212865302010-01-25T21:55:30.635-05:002010-01-25T21:55:30.635-05:00HamiltonsGhost: Exactly right, but try telling th...HamiltonsGhost: Exactly right, but try telling that to the thick-headed professor Obama.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-49728490387883185392010-01-25T21:53:51.421-05:002010-01-25T21:53:51.421-05:00Lawhawk--When the Founders framed the First Amendm...Lawhawk--When the Founders framed the First Amendment, they had only two types of speech in mind for protection--political and religious. Any attempts, and there have been many, to proscribe them would have shocked the Founders. McCain-Feingold would have them shaking their heads in disgust.HamiltonsGhosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07777000856977635480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-936030200058667852010-01-25T21:48:03.293-05:002010-01-25T21:48:03.293-05:00WriterX: As much as I admire McCain's bravery...WriterX: As much as I admire McCain's bravery in war and honesty during the Savings and Loan scandal, he's stayed to long at the fair. It's time for him to slowly fade away, preferably before the primary. I hope the Arizona conservative candidates are strong enough to move ahead of him in the polls and prod him out of the race. But I think he'll have to be forced out.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-79574812027186992522010-01-25T21:06:43.858-05:002010-01-25T21:06:43.858-05:00LawHawk, you are absolutely right: McCain has donn...LawHawk, you are absolutely right: McCain has donned his conservative persona for this election cycle. Barely a peep about it. He tosses his piece of crap legislation aside now like it's no big deal. I'm glad the Supreme Court saw the light because McCain sure didn't. Yet one more reason not to vote for McCain in November.Writer Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16505411188186283813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-71593330427352061232010-01-25T18:42:51.767-05:002010-01-25T18:42:51.767-05:00Andrew: All too true. McCain (currently in conse...Andrew: All too true. McCain (currently in conservative election mode) even says that it was a noble effort, but the Supreme Court has spoken, so that's it.<br /><br />It was bad enough that Bush signed it, but he even announced that he was sure the Supreme Court would overrule all or most of the thing. Since when do presidents make their decision on that kind of stupidity? The president has a preemptive right and duty to veto legislation he believes to be unconstitutional and not wait for the Supreme Court.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-66040808061568582082010-01-25T18:27:46.721-05:002010-01-25T18:27:46.721-05:00Fortunately, the Supreme Court and the public aren...Fortunately, the Supreme Court and the public aren't buying Obama's garbage. The polls are showing that an overwhelming majority sees this as free speech.<br /><br />McCain Feingold was not only a betrayal of the Constitution by those who voted for it (and that jackass who signed it into law), but a stupid, stupid thing for Republicans to do -- it's like disarming your friends and giving the weapons to your opponents. Idiots.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.com