Online Freedom of Speech Act Introduced in House 391
Fox Cutter writes "Today in the House of Representatives, Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) introduced a companion piece of legislation to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's bill (S.678) to exclude the Internet from the definition of 'public communication' in the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002." If the bill passes, this would free the internet from FEC regulation.
That's my Congressman! (Score:5, Interesting)
And then, Jeb Hensarling (R - Athens) goes and opens the door to "these newcomers to our political process [...] bloggers and online activists." (from TFA). And in a show of rare bipartisanship (on an issue not involving oil or war), he's partnering with a leading Democratic Senator. And some of the biggest beneficiaries of the legislation will be third-party bloggers, Greens [gpus.org], Libertarians [lp.org], and all the rest.
It's as if he has a sense of civic duty. Maybe it's possible, even today. After all, there are an awful lot of "R"s in Texas who were "D"s in a previous life.
Re:That's my Congressman! (Score:5, Funny)
For politics, that's a healthy positive you have there. "The glass is somewhat damp" as opposed to "The glass is almost completely barren".
Re:That's my Congressman! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's my Congressman! (Score:5, Informative)
Because they've already passed laws involving political speech that violate the 1st amendment in the name of "fairness" in political campaign finance. Now they're writing laws to exclude the internet since the older laws would otherwise include the internet.
Fair Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still waiting for someone to show me where in the Constitution it says that freedom of the press is only allowed if what is being said it considered to be "fair" by the government. (the backers of the "Fairness Doctrine", which censors broadcast media that the government does not like, seem to think so). They must have a different Constitution. Any idea where I can get a copy of it?
Re:Fair Speech (Score:2)
Show me where the Constitution says freedom of the press includes the government having to supply the press. What part of "the airwaves are the property of the people as a whole, and holders of broadcast licenses are only permitted to use them in the public interest, not to exploit a monopoly to push one particular point of view" are you not grasping?
Re:Fair Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm more curious to see the part of the Constitution that defines contributing money to a political party/candidate as an act of "speech".
Re:Fair Speech (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, another group in Washington decided to pass laws that impose limits upon how much political free speech you can do about any particular federal candidate, and later passed more laws saying you couldn't do so much free speaking when it comes to the party of your favourite candidates.
But they get around that by allowing you to send an unlimited amount of free speech to a licensed-by-the-government organization to spread it around TV and radio stations, so long as no one can tie the control of those organizations back to the political parties or candidates. Which is going to get very interesting here soon, since one of those organizations, MoveOn.org, is now claiming they're going to "take back control" of one of those parties...
And, of course, none of this takes into account money spent by people hiring relatives of political office holders to sit in Washington and lobby congress, getting very favourable legislation passed with the help of their personal Senator or Representative.
Re:Fair Speech (Score:3, Interesting)
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
And no, the interstate commerce clause *cannot* be used to justify whatever federal power you have a hard-on for, despite historical precedent. Amendments trump original clauses, by definition.
Max
"
Re:Fair Speech (Score:3, Interesting)
Article I section 8: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes", otherwise known as the Commerce Clause.
As a strict constructionist myself, I agree with you that the Commerce clause is very over-used for
Why the internet? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I don't support the first amendment in every facet, but why should the internet be different? Seems to me that either the old law should be stricken, or not.
Re:That's my Congressman! (Score:3, Interesting)
With that backdrop, I think it's hardly surprising that the right would work to protect blogging and the internet. We've seen it at work already wit
Re:That's my Congressman! (Score:2)
In case you aren't aware, Brock used to be part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy(tm) and now runs Media Matters for America.
Re:That's my Congressman! (Score:2, Interesting)
I just read about them. They are one of these "astroturfed" interest groups formed mainly to censor those they do not like, such as the Sinclair Group. They are making the false accusation that the Sinclair Group is "abusing the airwaves" by expressing opinions that Media Matters does not like, and they are pushing for the government to censor the Sinclair Group.
Whatever happened to tolerance for opposing views? Why must groups like this work so hard to get the go
Re:That's my Congressman! (Score:2)
OK. Show me where you get "opposing views" from the Sinclair's spouted over the airwaves evey night in the seventeen or so states that they broadcast in. And, no, I don't count CNN or broadcast news as "opposing views".
BTW, in case you haven't noticed, these guys are the establishment now. Playing the "poor little stomped on me" card is getting old really quicly. And guess what? Being in control just makes them suck more.
....shall not be abridged! (Score:2)
It is their programming. They have a right to say whatever they want. Including opposing views is an editorial decision they might or might not make. It is exactly the same as the New York Times choosing to print whatever views they want in their editorial pages. (and whether or not you count CNN as an opposing view, it is one. Not that it matters).
"BTW, in case you haven't noticed, these guys are the establishmen
Re:That's my Congressman! (Score:2)
All I'm asking for is to present both sides as just that -- opposing views. Moore offered Sinclair his movie for free. If they were truly interested in political neutrality, they'd play F9/11 right after Stolen Honor [stolenhonor.com].
Again, you might own the licence to the spectrum, but they're everyone's airwaves. Respect that.
Re:That's my Congressman! (Score:3, Insightful)
So, if the opinion does not agree with yours, it must be censored? No, they are our airwaves. The government has rightly seen to it that this "medium" is much like the newspapers, with freedom of content. Also, last time I checked, it was free speech for someone to say that their opinion is true.
"All I'm asking for is to present both sides as just that -- opposing views"
You can ask, but you cannot force your view
Re:That's my Congressman! (Score:2)
Re:That's my Congressman! (Score:3, Insightful)
Please remember that not all Republicans are God-exploiting neocon fucks. Some of them still stand for the positive things Republicans stood for before Reagan.
Clearly, this will go nowhere (Score:4, Insightful)
In short, this is a pr move; nothing to see.
Re:Clearly, this will go nowhere (Score:3, Funny)
Careful though (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Careful though (Score:4, Insightful)
A web site can be located outside jurisdiction of US. The contents can not be blocked without massive firewalling. Worse enough, emails might carry specific IP addresses with different port to look at prohibited contents. If u look at the artillary of protocols, It will be gigantic task to setup a watchdog to regulate things there.
That will be awful waste of taxpayers money. my 2 cents.
Re:Careful though (Score:2)
Votes. Vote for the legislators that tend to back less regulation and government involvement in daily life, commerce, and election communications.
Re:Careful though (Score:2)
I demand to know: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I demand to know: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're just trying to get themselves out of the hole they dug when they passed the Campaign finance reform laws. Someone pointed out that these laws should apply to the internet as well, so they decided to make up some nonsense about the internet not being a tool for public communication so it is not affected by the campaign finance laws.
Re:I demand to know: (Score:4, Insightful)
This is no different than you or I calling up or visiting a local campaign office. The candidate or his staff can "campaign" at us all they want if we choose to walk in the door of their office.
If this is the definition from which they base "public communication" though, then politicians resorting to Unsolicited Political Email (is there a name for that? Pork?) would still have problems. (...as they should, but not because it is political, but because it is unsolicited...)
Re:I demand to know: (Score:3, Interesting)
The TV is also listener initiated, because I have to turn it on and set the channel I want. I know lots of people have a problem with that idea, and throw tantrums at Fox / boobies / etc, but they choose what they watch.
I've seen TV regul
This could set a good precedent for censorship... (Score:4, Insightful)
As opposed to... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the point (Score:3)
I could understand TV and radio ads that cost more than say.... $5,000 because you could argue that the average person couldn't be behind that. Yet the problem here is that eventually they can and will call
Just A Band-Aid (Score:3, Insightful)
HOW? (Score:5, Funny)
Flame on!
Re:HOW? (Score:5, Funny)
Of course they are, a Democrat created the internet, why would the GOP want to embrace it?
(And yes, I hate myself for spreading the (fake) story)
Re:HOW? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:HOW? (Score:2)
To be serious though... It doesn't entirely surprise me that this bill came from a Republican. Is it not true that most Republicans are actually against regulation by the government? They prefer that the government did not meddle in their business or personal affairs. This is one area that I tend to agree with them.
Re:HOW? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Republican party as a whole is a compromise between these two viewpoints (there's also a few minor factions). But I'm thinking the divide between the two camps is widening. The social conservatives have tasted power, and they don't want to give it up. To them "small government" was merely a tactic to use while they were out of power. The libertarian wing, on the other hand, is starting to wonder what the difference really is between their big government Republican brethren and the big government Democrats.
Re:HOW? (Score:4, Insightful)
What's more important is the slashdot mind-meld. I'm a Republican and a poster on Slashdot for only a few months. It is true that I sometimes cringe and laugh out loud at posts here. But that is the world we live in, and for every "Bush=Hitler" post there are many more with thoughtful criticisms of GWB that are worth reading and responding to. When people engage in such debate, there is at least a tacit level of respect between all parties concerned. When you debate enough Republicans, you realize that although you disagree with them, they are not vampires, and you can have them as friends and colleagues. Again, through debate, you realize that I'm not evil, that I don't run over kittens with my Hummer for fun, and that I love it that both I and the people who disagree with me completely can debate.
Oh yes, I also use Firefox. That at least will get me a good mod.
Re:HOW? (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, it seems to be more bipartisan than soley Republican or Democrat. If someone wanted to nitpick they could poi
Re:HOW? (Score:3, Informative)
What does this REALLY mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is bullshit... (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the avarage senate seat now costs over one million dollars. The president raised over $60,000,000 of hard money. The days of going door to door, meeting people is over. The days of long talks about what you believe and why is over. The new 30 second soundbyte is in, and the negative attack ads.
Re:This is bullshit... (Score:2)
Isn't this already the case? I mean... I know anyone can run for public office but how many people actually make it into important positions without funding from the usual places.
Re:This is bullshit... (Score:3, Insightful)
But there was hope the problem would be fixed. People like Senator John McCain wanted to limit how much money got in the political process. People like former Senator Paul Simon admited he spent over one year each term doing fund raising, and he felt compelled to anwser the phone from those groups which funded him. He said "how
Re:This is bullshit... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is bullshit... (Score:2)
Why? So only the Perot's who are already super rich can run?
"Every candidate running for a particular office should be allotted an equal amount of money that would be gathered from the public, most likely via taxes"
Only if these taxes were voluntary. Why should a Green be forced to give money to the Buchanan campaign and vice-versa? That violates basic political rights. Let each person choose.
"At lea
Re:This is bullshit... (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess what I was suggesting would include the person running themselves. Basically what I meant was that they shouldn't be able to use ANY money except what was given to them for their campaign with each candidate being given the same amount.
Only if these taxes were voluntary. Why should a Green be forced to give money to the Buchanan campaign and vice-versa? That violates basic political rights. Let each person choose.
How many of the existing taxes are voluntary? I agree that they should be but that just isn't the case currently. I certainly don't approve of my money being used to build bombs. Do you?
"Oh, and they should all get equal time on any sort of public debate."
That should be left entirely up to the organization holding the debate.
Well then we need a government appointed organization to hold _fair_ debates where each candidate gets a chance to participate. This two party BS is ridiculous and insulting.
Re:This is bullshit... (Score:2)
It is so easy to think of loopholes around this. Even then, I never imagined that the "527's" would prove McCain-Feingold to be nothing at all.
OK, let's say I have these restrictions. I'm Ross Perot, for example. Instead of campaigning, I fly around the country educating people about civic affairs. It is not a campaign, no it is not! h
Re:This is bullshit... (Score:3, Interesting)
Then form a better party.
And who decides what a "better party" is? We already have plenty of other parties but do any of them actually stand a chance in hell of winning? Not last time I checked. That was my point about changing how candidates get their funding. I admit it probably wouldn't ever work but we certainly need to do _something_ to change the current situation. Having other parties doesn't do a whole lot of good if they don't have any way of getti
Re:This is bullshit... (Score:2)
Americans individually do this, by choosing to join them or not to join them.
"Having other parties doesn't do a whole lot of good if they don't have any way of getting their message out to the public."
They do. I see plenty of material from the fringe parties during campaigns, perhaps in excess of the proportion of support for them. The problem is less than "we can't be heard" than it is that these fringe parties try to appeal to 3% of Americans instead of 73
Re:This is bullshit... (Score:2)
You do? That's odd... All I ever seem to hear about through the mainstream media are the democrats and the republicans. If you want to know about the other parties you have to actually put forth a fair amount of effort to seek out the
Re:This is bullshit... (Score:2)
Whether or not it is screwed, is it really the government's business how many are in the private political organizations in which people band together out of common interest? Or how many of these organizations there are? Or how few? The Constitution is party-neutral.
Re:This is bullshit... (Score:2)
Obviously there would have to be a way to prevent people from just pocketing the cash for such a system to work. My suggestion probably would never work in practice but we need to do something and I'm just trying to get people thinking of ways to prevent the rampant corporatism that is sweeping the country.
"Vote FatRatBastard. I promise a PBR in every hand and sl
Re:This is bullshit... (Score:2)
Again, that would benefit the rich. How would you or I go up against an Edwards, Bush, Kerry for a Senate/House seat? They have millions in personal money to spend us into the ground.
Welfare for the Rich (Score:2)
Of course it would. The parent is actually demanding that the government give large sums of money to people like this who are already rich. His exact quote: "Every candidate running for a particular office should be allotted an equal amount of money that would be gathered from the public, most likely via taxes"
Talk about one of the worst wastes of money ever!
Re:This is bullshit... (Score:2)
Sorry, I did not explain what I meant adequately... My intention was that each candidate by given an equal amount of money for their campaign and be restricted to only using this money for their campaign needs. They would not be allowed to use either their personal money or money contributed by private 3rd parties. This would
Re:This is bullshit... (Score:2, Insightful)
There was?
Naw. There was traction to be gotten by grandstanding about it as if 'the problem' could be fixed.
I would fear some mediocre 'average person' achiving powerful political office in our country. The key to 'abuse of political power by those with money' is to drastically reduce said political power, so there isn't very much to buy.
Re:This is bullshit... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is bullshit... (Score:2)
Days of long talks... (Score:5, Insightful)
In my experience as a 37 year old American, the only time I've ever engaged in long talks with people about what I believe and why were occurred during the three years I lived in Washington, DC. People inside the Beltway talk about this sort of thing all the time. You go into a bar and instead of asking someone what their sign is, you ask them who they work for and what their party affiliation is. Then you start arguing politics. It's quite fun, actually.
But even though I took a lot of PoliSci in college and have worked in the nonprofit and in federal government, the days of long talks about what I believed and why never existed outside my time in D.C.. In my experience the only people in America who are truly interested in the truly deep details of politics are people inside the Beltway, who have a much more sophisticated view of politics than you might imagine, because in order to get things done, they have to know the details.
For the rest of America, politics is unfortunately either a yawner or an excuse to shout about deeply-held beliefs without ever investigating the details. Negative attack ads have been a staple of political advertising for as long as I can remember, and they just keep getting worse, per your statement.
Re:Days of long talks... (Score:5, Interesting)
People inside the beltway are far more likely to work for congressmen than people in the rest of the US. This concentration of people who have to know politics in detail is what allows you to have those conversations. Those same people would be unable to have a in depth conversation on the merits of various corn varieties. Its what you know.
Of course once you have a critical mass of people who know the subject onlookers who otherwise won't have to care become sucked in because the only way to have a conversation with most people is to talk about politics in detail. People have the same problem with me, unless the topic is computer programing I can't hold a conversation. I know politics (Not to the level you do), but I don't know how to hold a conversation about it.
Re:This is bullshit... (Score:2)
Yeah, I can. (Score:2)
Look at Ol Jugears and his predecessors, especially the ones of much older days who had a lot of power. All they had to do was be born in a palace.
Re:Yeah, I can. (Score:3, Informative)
Being born in a palace in "the much older days" was only part of the road to power. To get to the throne you had to outlive your parents, uncles, aunts, and older siblings/cousins that were an obstacle due to pedigree or influence. Th
Re:This is bullshit... (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to burst your bubble, but members of the House of Representatives are decided every ten years in the state capitals. When the districts are drawn in such a way that it gives one party's candidate a distinct majority, and margins of victory unheard of in state-wide or presidential elections, the biennial elections are mere formality. No amount of money can change demographics.
The argument
Re:This is bullshit... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is bullshit... (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
It was well known that M$ has purchased politicians. Remember when Clinton was in office, he ordered the department of justice to start anti-trust investigations against Microsoft. As soon as Bush was elected, he ordered Ashcroft to end those investigations.
One anti-trust law. Two administrations. Shouldn't the law be applied the same? Or did money get into the decisions?
That is hardly relevant (Score:2)
How is that relevant? Companies never say a word. However, individuals in these companies do talk, and they also have 1st Amendment rights.
Watch out ! (Score:2, Funny)
This is definitely progress (Score:2, Funny)
Cong short-sightedness (Score:5, Insightful)
The Internet is "not" a public communications medium, so... it's a cheese bagel?
This is not about free speech, free speech is letting me say what I think w/o going to jail. This is about the net as a political medium.
That said, I am not against this bill, but the
I disagree with the supreme court ruling that says $ = speech, because that implies rich people have a louder voice than poor people, which seems not so good.
Not a bad thing (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not about "giving", but it is about allowing others to express their opinions, despite our opinion that they are "extremist". Censoring? Now that is a "Bad Thing".
"I disagree with the supreme court ruling that says $ = speech"
$ is often speech, especially when we are talking about laws (McCain-Feingold) which cut off money as a means toward censoring political s
No exceptions for censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire campaign finance law needs to be repealed. Not modified. Not limited. Repealed.
Restore freedom of speech before it's too late.
Re:No exceptions for censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a difficult balancing act between freedom of speech and the integrity of our elections. Both are very important to our democracy, so perhaps you need to consider both sides of this issue before you pick freedom of speech over election integrity.
There is a middle
Re:No exceptions for censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
Big corporations back regulations for the purpose of keeping small up-and-coming destabilzing competitors out of the industry. They can absorb the cost of the regulation while the guy with the $25K SBA loan can't.
Re:No exceptions for censorship (Score:3, Informative)
Every time the government imposes censorship on election speech, it undermines the integrity of the election process.
Let's be clear here that the bill would not prevent the FEC from censoring the internet. It would amend section 301 of BCRA, to clarify the issue in Shays-Meehan v FEC, which requires the FEC to revisit rulemaking on applying section 301 to the internet.
The public comment period for that rulemaking is now under way, and we need slashdotters to take par
Re:No exceptions for censorship (Score:2)
I don't live in your country; What passes for your politics is (mostly irrelevant to me on a day-to-day council tax basis).
What you are suggesting is close to what China as a government thinks.
Your post (if not a troll) should be considered as -1 Dumb.
Re:No exceptions for censorship (Score:2)
Kohath was indeed insightful, and his view is the opposite of the China government system. There, no-one has the freedom to run against, spend against, or criticize government officials. What Kohath asked for was the maximum unfettered freedom to do these things.
Re:No exceptions for censorship (Score:2)
Kinda odd... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course even if they did try and limit things. If they can't control porn/spam/gambling/etc on the net now, they sure as hell wouldn't be able to do anything about people blogging on servers outside the US.
It is a good start. (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe my Google skills are rusty (Score:2, Informative)
The Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] did link to a partial report [congress.gov], but I profess ignorance in how to decipher where Paragraph 22 is, if it's listed. Other links I've found seem to rely on a couple 404's at Cornell, subchapter I [cornell.edu] and subchapter II [cornell.edu].
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Dear political assholes (Score:3, Insightful)
Stay off our internet. We don't need you "running" it. We don't WANT you running it. Right now theres ALOT worse crimes going on in the real world (rape, murder, muggings and such). Which need solving before "OMG someone said I wasa jerk on a blog!" or "OMG He downloaded a song! 12 years in jail!".
Go fix the real world an leave the digital one to people who know about it, not just jerk off with it.
Bullocks... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see freedom in this. I can still blog away, as long as I am not accepting regulated campaign funds to do so. People bat this around like they are making us more "free" when all it does is allow the guys with money to influence our true freedom of speech.
This is like paying the New York Times to write a nice acticle about your campaign. The FEC doesn't allow that, nor should they allow money to influence one of the last bastions of true free speech.
Think about it people!!!!!!
Re:Bullocks... (Score:3, Informative)
Imagine that! (Score:3, Interesting)
Wonder if he believes in freedom of speech for non-pols? Was he around when the votes came up for CDA and son-of? How did he vote?
You may be interested in the exact text (Score:5, Informative)
It says simply
Now, let's google a little further for the bill that this bill amends. Strangely it's missing from any of the summaries I've seen. Ah, here it is [fec.gov] (warning: large PDF).
Here's the text of the section being amended (431:22):
The last bit of emphasis I added. Just as an exercise, let's see how this would look as amended:
So, this bill would exempt all campaign regulation relevant to advertising spending so long as it was on the internet.
looks like an attempt to create a loophole (Score:3, Interesting)
By analogy, let's say there was a lot of political activism on amateur radio. Great, your Congressman says: we should exempt all radio-based communications from FEC regulation. Oops--all of a sudden, TV and commercial radio are off-limits to FEC regulation.
I don't see why the Internet needs any special legislation here. Paid election-related activities on the Internet should be regulated the same way they are regulated in any other medium. And, yes, that may mean "registering a blog" if that blog was created for a PR firm that is getting paid millions of dollars for its work; astroturfing is, in some sense, worse than other kinds of commercial advertising.
Unpaid, personal activities should be unregulated on the Internet, and they should be unregulated anywhere else.
U.S. vs. European values (Score:3, Insightful)
My bet is that his party saw how well campaign-paid blogging worked in South Dakota to upseat minority leader Tom Dashle. Basically, the Republican Party experimented with the internet this election and concluded that, yeah, we can work within this system to effectively spread propaganda.
So it comes down, as it does so frequently, to whether speech is free absolutely or whether outright lying should be prohibited (ala European laws) when there is a net social impact in how the lies influence the foolish. There is no clear answer. We prohibit false advertising claims in the U.S. all the time. Why not make it a federal offense to finance a blog that claims, for example, that presidential candidate John McCain has an illegitimate black baby?
Personally, I want to come down on the side of absolute freedom of speech. I just have the sinking feeling that I'm being played for a fool in doing so in this age of concentrated mass media.
Re:Bad. Bad. Bad Idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
And if it had been introduced by a Democrat, you'd be singing it's praises from the rooftops.
"All hail the Democrats! The see the true power of free speech!"
Oh wait. It was introduced by a Democrat in the Senate.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. D-Nevada
The bill introduced by Hensarling is a companion bill in the House. Bipartisanship in action.
Re:Bad. Bad. Bad Idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
This bill is in the interests of dems and reps, but not in the interests of normal human ppl who don't see every detail of the world as part of a huge ideologica
Re:Bad. Bad. Bad Idea. (Score:2)
Big benefits to big money, little benefit for thee and me.
(and if people think the Repubs are the only big money party, look around a little)
That is closer to the truth than you think (Score:5, Interesting)
Click here to donate through my PayPal Account!
Please select the amount:
[ ] $50,000
[ ] $150,000
[ ] $250,000
[ ] Supreme Court Seat
With the internet, I can see money being raised in foriegn countries, then having websites promoting candidates unregulated on the internet. So what if there is a $1,000 maximum on individuals contributing to candidates. Who is going to stop China from helping Clinton get elected http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:1smXmfU5JwEJ: www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000 /000/001/990axijx.asp+gore+china+fundraising+scand al&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 [64.233.167.104].
Everyone knows that money elects people, not idea's. Campaigns hire people to run advertising. They have buzz words, speeches filled with little phrases perfect for a 10 second soundbyte on the news. They make more negative attack ads than advertising about ideas. And often those negative attacks can be ridiculous lies, but they work.
Right now, China can't buy commercial space on TV for promoting a candidate in a USA election. Who is to say they won't do just that with the internet? Or Isreal. Who is to say that Isreal won't secretly fund a candidate, then in return have weapons secrets leaked to them?
Re:That is closer to the truth than you think (Score:4, Informative)
It's spelt Israel, not Isreal.
Re:Hmm, images were removed from article! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hmm, images were removed from article! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This bill is bad, and democracy was over years (Score:3, Insightful)
Would this apply to newspapers, and radio and TV news? If so, that pretty much means that if the President is mentioned in the New York Times ONCE during the Campaign season, he's used up his campaign budget.
Or any candidate for said office. Which gives the New York Times Editor a great deal of political power - sin