CCCToad on 21/1/2010 at 23:33
So, something pretty big news-wise went down today. What has puzzled me is that there is a near-total blackout on the issue. AP has reported it, but nobody else has even mentioned the story:
(
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_CAMPAIGN_FINANCE_OPTIONAL?SITE=MAFAL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)
Basically, the famed "30 day rule" that prevented corporations and Unions from running candidate ads within 30 days of an election has been overturned. I haven't looked up the holding on this one yet (so I don't have quotes, will add them if/when I get around to it since I'm busy this week), but the news report indicates that they ruled it unconstitutional because it is a direct restriction of political speech(a category that deserves and gets special protection), saying that it was a worthy goal to reduce the control special interests have but that it must be done in a constitutional manner.
My Personal (unprofessional) opinion is that this is hard to disagree with; it almost exactly describes my own sentiments on the issue prior to the ruling. Obviously, special interest control of Washington is a bad thing. However, a ruling in the opposite direction would have set a very bad precedent; especially because the bill didn't seem particularly effective at controlling special interests.
SubJeff on 21/1/2010 at 23:33
Does creating new threads get you off or something?
Queue on 21/1/2010 at 23:37
We could keep talking about Avatar.
CCCToad on 21/1/2010 at 23:46
Not really, there's just been some good stuff this week.
Stitch on 22/1/2010 at 01:02
Quote Posted by CCCToad
What has puzzled me is that there is a near-total blackout on the issue. AP has reported it, but nobody else has even mentioned the story:
You don't listen to NPR, do you?
Edit: actually, what the fuck are you on about? I can't find a news website on which this isn't currently a headline.
CCCToad on 22/1/2010 at 01:06
Rarely. Grew up in a household where it was on almost 24/7, and I realized that the only programming that consistently provides any good news are their little headline blurbs and marketplace. All things considered too frequently devolves into 30 minute long interviews of a basketweaver in Madagascar or similarly random topics that give one the illusion of being informed but fail to give any information worth being informed of. As for Marketplace, I'm rarely free to listen to it when its on.
Rug Burn Junky on 22/1/2010 at 01:13
Quote Posted by CCCToad
My Personal (unprofessional) opinion ...
This is what repeatedly gets you into trouble.
And yet you don't learn your lesson.
It's kind of sad, really.
CCCToad on 22/1/2010 at 01:28
Except for my little bit about how I didn't think the bill was effective at controlling special interests, I agree with what the Supreme Court's holding,not really sure what there is to argue about it. Hell, the concurring opinion was worded almost exactly the same way I've expressed that opinion before (in an offline discussion). If you want to argue that their decision was wrong, argue with them in person, not me.
Anyway, I have no intention of arguing about the practical effects of the ruling because I have no idea what the ramifications will be. Except for that I'll have to watch more annoying political ads.
theBlackman on 22/1/2010 at 02:01
I think your ranting is way overboard. If politics and the system annoy you that much, try using a few "little grey cells", to quote Poirot, and be sure you understand how the system works.
True, it's screwed up, but your little bits just reinforce the appearance that you are excessively paranoid, irrational and more than a bit of a NUT.
CCCToad on 22/1/2010 at 02:22
Elaborate. Exactly how does the system work that I'm not getting?
And how does saying that BCRA didn't do a good job of controlling special interests( or control political money) indicate a state of delusional paranoia?
mockery != argument and even if it did I haven't said anything radical enough or substantial enough to argue over.
