Staggering Billions Spent On Attack Ads

[bush_cheney2004]

VOLUNTARY limits, though...

See McCain-Feingold-Cochran....and government financing...those "voluntary" limits are in place, but if you can raise and spend more, then that is what a candidate will do....just like Senator Barack Obama.

[ToadBrother]

The Americans have been betrayed by their Supreme Court. First it stated that corporate entities were entitled to be treated as though they were people, and so refused to allow bans on their donations or advertising. Then it refused to allow any kind of interference or limitation on so-called third party advertising. Of course this just allows corporate and other wealthy interests to buy even more influence with the already sordidly corrupt political class. If you want to be elected in the US today you find yourself one of the big money men, prostitute yourself to their agendas, and then you're in. That's how it works in a plutocracy.

They have this thing called the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Simply put, what so many seem to want in campaign reform is unconstitutional.

Edited November 1, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

See McCain-Feingold-Cochran....and government financing...those "voluntary" limits are in place, but if you can raise and spend more, then that is what a candidate will do....just like Senator Barack Obama.

No kidding. Isn't Obama pretty much the most successful political fundraiser in the history of the United States?

[GostHacked]

Errr..lighten up Francis...it was a joke, i.e. when it comes to politicians, Americans are bored with highly processed candidates.

People who are genuinely interested in politics can do without the drama and spectacle and fakeness of it all.

[GostHacked]

They have this thing called the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Simply put, what so many seem to want in campaign reform is unconstitutional.

Signing statements and executive orders combines when enacted during a crisis can eliminate the constitution. Some of that is already in place as we speak. That practice has gone back several presidencies.

[ToadBrother]

Signing statements and executive orders combines when enacted during a crisis can eliminate the constitution. Some of that is already in place as we speak. That practice has gone back several presidencies.

Executive orders can only go so far (just as Orders-in-council in Canada and the UK), and what does any of that have to do with campaign finance reform and attack ads?

[bush_cheney2004]

People who are genuinely interested in politics can do without the drama and spectacle and fakeness of it all.

.....too boring. Stephane Dion even put Canadians to sleep.

[Michael Hardner]

.....too boring. Stephane Dion even put Canadians to sleep.

I'm thinking you're the only American who knows who he is.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm thinking you're the only American who knows who he is.

Maybe one other....Michael Ignatieff!

[Wilber]

"Elections are no time for serious debate" Kim Campbell

She was pilloried for that comment back in 93. More than anywhere, the US validates that statement every October and our elections are increasingly headed in the same direction. Thank goodness US TV feeds will be going back to their normal commercials in a couple of days.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Thank goodness US TV feeds will be going back to their normal commercials in a couple of days.

LOL! A sentiment shared by many many Americans. "...call your doctor if an erection lasts longer than four hours..."

[Argus]

They have this thing called the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Simply put, what so many seem to want in campaign reform is unconstitutional.

Keeping slaves is constitutional. It was, at least, when the supreme court said it was. Not letting black people vote was okay to. The constitution is whatever the nine people in robes say it is, and there is no appeal. If the SC said was unconstitutional for people to drive cars Americans would have to start getting out the horses and buggies again.

[Shady]

Keeping slaves is constitutional. It was, at least, when the supreme court said it was. Not letting black people vote was okay to.

I don't think keeping slaves was constitutional. Either was denying blacks the right to vote. Although it was certainly tolerated. But both of those practices certainly don't jive with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" outlined in the declaration of independence.

[ToadBrother]

Keeping slaves is constitutional. It was, at least, when the supreme court said it was. Not letting black people vote was okay to. The constitution is whatever the nine people in robes say it is, and there is no appeal. If the SC said was unconstitutional for people to drive cars Americans would have to start getting out the horses and buggies again.

The 13th Amendment made slavery illegal. Yes, it took another century to complete all the aspects of Reconstruction, but ultimately the Supreme Court found even the final vestiges of Jim Crow, "Separate but Equal" to be in defiance of all constitutional principles.

[Argus]

The 13th Amendment made slavery illegal. Yes, it took another century to complete all the aspects of Reconstruction, but ultimately the Supreme Court found even the final vestiges of Jim Crow, "Separate but Equal" to be in defiance of all constitutional principles.

Let me suggest that if you took a bunch of lawyers who happened to be closet Nazis and put them on the supreme court that their er, interpretation of the Constitution would be rather different than is presently the case. The constitution is just a paper which is open to the interpretation of people who are human and have biases and agendas. People shouldn't elevate it to a holy document.

Anyway, the black robes seem to find excuses to ban porn despite that 1st amendment, and to put people in prison for producing or looking at it. If they can interpret the 1st amendment to allow that they ought to be able to allow some restrictions on election advertising for the better good of society.

[guyser]

"...call your doctor if an erection lasts longer than four hours..."

my Dr is my wife, what do I do now? Besides, she prescribed them in the first place!

[ToadBrother]

Let me suggest that if you took a bunch of lawyers who happened to be closet Nazis and put them on the supreme court that their er, interpretation of the Constitution would be rather different than is presently the case. The constitution is just a paper which is open to the interpretation of people who are human and have biases and agendas. People shouldn't elevate it to a holy document.

And yet, generally speaking, there is over two centuries of jurisprudence. The law isn't just something that you can willfully reinterpret, and justices in both the US tradition and in our common law tradition do not easily or frequently overturn old cases.

Trying to make well-worn and tested constitutions like the United States' sound like tissue paper is pretty silly, and not born out by the facts.

Anyway, the black robes seem to find excuses to ban porn despite that 1st amendment, and to put people in prison for producing or looking at it. If they can interpret the 1st amendment to allow that they ought to be able to allow some restrictions on election advertising for the better good of society.

The Supreme Court has long recognized certainly inevitable restrictions, though the kinds of porn that are outright banned are at the extreme end. While I don't, on philosophical grounds, approve of banning of coprophilic porn, I can't really say that upholding laws against it really represent what you seem to think they do; and that is turning of the First Amendment into a document that exists at the pleasure of SCOTUS interpretation.

[bush_cheney2004]

The 13th Amendment made slavery illegal. Yes, it took another century to complete all the aspects of Reconstruction, but ultimately the Supreme Court found even the final vestiges of Jim Crow, "Separate but Equal" to be in defiance of all constitutional principles.

You are correct for the original point....a constitutional amendment made the Supreme Court moot, as the constitution is the highest law of the land (USA). Until then, slavery was perfectly legal in designated states....even the earlier slavery ban in the British Empire only prevented new sales of slaves and added higher costs and proof of ownership for existing "property".