The Disclose Act, described by President Barack Obama in the accompanying video, will require anonymous cowards, such as those from Citizens for Job Security, who launched a misleading attack ad against Republican Seventh District Congressional candidate Billy Long today, to reveal who they are when they pay for attack ads:
10 comments:
Is it not the organization's right to use their money however they choose? Why should the government be able to tell them how to spend their money?
I have no problem with that. But when individuals funnel millions into these organizations to influence elections, we have every right to no who these people are. Nice sounding organizations just don't cut it for me.
I agree that the folks who ran this are gutless cowards, however it doesn't discount the fact that the funds were strictly earmarked in the TEA-21 act for this project and requested by Sen Bond. The director of this group is correct when he told Catanese that all Congressmen call these earmarks grants. There is no difference...period.
The freedom to anonymously criticize powerful politicians (Long may become one after the election) is essential, especially in a society where the government is so powerful. This is something that the Supreme Court has recognized in the context of handbills; I don't see why it oughtn't apply to other media.
You want the "right to no (sic) who these people are"; for what purpose beside retaliation? Whatever happened to judging arguments by what they say instead of playing ad hominem rhetorical games?
One of the first agenda items by the new administration was to move McCain-Feingold to the top of the Supreme Court Docket. MeCain-Feingold limited corporations, unions, private business from buying campaign ads.
Why? Because at the time some believe the administration wanted those groups free to spend. Unions ring a bell.
As it has worked out, those same groups that were thought to be serious supporters of certain parts of the administration right after the election are not so supportive now. That has then caused for the administration, the same ones who wanted McCain-Feingold overturned as it was, reinstated in large part.
Oh what a tanggled web we weave.
To Anonymous 5:51: Sorry about that right to no bit. It was late when I wrote that. However, I do put ny name on what I write. And knowing who is paying millions for vicious attack ads has nothing whatsoever to do with retaliation; voters have the right to know the source of information. The more information the voters have at their disposal, the easier it is for make them informed choices.
A law the Nazis would have been proud of. Maybe we should all wear an armband to show our affiliation . . .
I totally disagree with you on that. As long as we have the sanctity of the ballot box and no one looking over our shoulder when we cast our votes, our rights remain intact. You can't equate that with shadowy interests who want to influence elections in this country. We have the right to know who is backing candidates or attacking them. That is why we require campaigns to keep detailed records of those who make contributions. We cannot allow people to get around these laws through the use of cleverly constructed loopholes
It's incredibly naive to suggest that all that's needed to protect our rights to free political speech is a ballot box curtain. Ask Joe the Plumber what happens when everyone knows your name after you've said something an opponent doesn't like.
"voters have the right to know the source of information"
The Warren Court disagreed in 1960, as I noted before.
Anonymous at 9:40 AM has adequately supported my point about retaliation.
Post a Comment