One question in Citizens United v. FEC was "what constitutes a campaign contribution?" Michael Moore had just made an anti Bush film, and decided to personally pay to run ads for his film just before an election. The ruling was basically that Michael Moore had just made a campaign contribution. That is, if David Koch's PAC had made a documentary about Obama's birth certificate and ran a bunch of ads for just before the election, that's effectively giving a campaign contribution as well.

Whether the campaign spent the money, or someone spent the money on behalf of the campaign, it didn't matter. An ad is an ad, and ads cost money. However, if you extend this logic, nobody can produce any positive or negative media about a candidate during the election run-up. That is, the NYT couldn't run a photo of Barry O smiling on the front page. That sort of exposure has value, and would thus constitute a contribution. Otherwise, what would stop me from producing a huge pile of fliers with smiling candidates on them and dropping them from my helicopters?

This is how we end up running up against free speech. Personally, I don't think we should put those kinds of restrictions on media. People will always play games, and find ways of couching themselves as other forms of protected media in order to keep funneling huge sums of money into biased political messages. That's just how it works. But I'm not comfortable limiting political speech, least of all around an election run up. The risk for unintended consequences is too high.

It's funny.
When Obama allegedly does something, then anti-obama people are outraged - OUTRAGED.
But when Bush allegedly did something, you better believe the anti-bush people were outraged - OUTRAGED.

Wow, I just lost a lot of respect for Dan Rather.

I am no fan of Bush, but looking over the history of the whole Killian documents scandal on Wikipedia, it's pretty clear that all the people who lost their jobs at CBS did so because they ran a news story without authenticating documents that were produced by someone who was notoriously anti-Bush and was only willing to turn them over if CBS helped him get a book deal. They then went on to misrepresent statements made by people connected to the event in a way that seemingly corroborated the documents. After learning all these facts, Dan himself said he would not have used the documents to run the story... but without the documents there WAS no story. Only an anti-Bush zealot claiming misconduct with no proof to back up his claims.

>> ^Diogenes:

@criticalthud
let's be really clear... i agree with your position on corporate personhood
but... we can use "citizens united" to abbreviate the scotus decision: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission... and how that decision has overturned several previous legal precedents and aspects of bcra -- and we can also use "citizens united" to refer directly to the non-profit group of the same name...
i'm just pointing out the latter (the npo) filed suit against the fec because they felt that a media corporation (moore, et al) was violating bcra - the fec dismissed their complaint -- then the group made a similar 'documentary' about hillary clinton and promoted it with the same style and timing of moore's anti-bush film - a lower court barred it, stating that it violated the bcra -- this background led us to the troubling scotus decision
what i was pointing out was that bcra, etc, was already allowing corporate political advocacy through the media, i.e. movie producers, book publishers, newspaper conglomerates, and television networks, etc
this, imho, is what really muddies the waters


thanks i really appreciate the clarification. muddy waters for sure. You raise some good points. Especially in distinguishing an over-reach of political influence from entertainment and documentary media. But are we getting to the point where campaign finance legislation will necessarily intrude on free press and the works of film-makers? what is your take? I would prefer to think that legislation could and should be narrowly tailored in this instance.
and (edit)
@bmacs24 I think it makes sense to start with the fundamental underlying legal ambiguity by which the power grab occurs. The war on "terror" is another ambiguous area of laws that also leads to incredible abuse.
Otherwise you find yourself caught in the minutiae, trying to re-arrange the top bricks on the shit-stack

@criticalthud
let's be really clear... i agree with your position on corporate personhood
but... we can use "citizens united" to abbreviate the scotus decision: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission... and how that decision has overturned several previous legal precedents and aspects of bcra -- and we can also use "citizens united" to refer directly to the non-profit group of the same name...

i'm just pointing out the latter (the npo) filed suit against the fec because they felt that a media corporation (moore, et al) was violating bcra - the fec dismissed their complaint -- then the group made a similar 'documentary' about hillary clinton and promoted it with the same style and timing of moore's anti-bush film - a lower court barred it, stating that it violated the bcra -- this background led us to the troubling scotus decision

what i was pointing out was that bcra, etc, was already allowing corporate political advocacy through the media, i.e. movie producers, book publishers, newspaper conglomerates, and television networks, etc

this, imho, is what really muddies the waters

yes, the system is broken and needs fixing, but...

citizens united was the logical outcome of michael moore's (inc) release of the anti-bush film "farenheit 9/11" in an election year, and its rushed dvd and tv releases within 30 days of the 2004 election

how could the fec state that it wasn't a form of corporate political advertising? how could they then turn around in 2008 and block the release of citizens united's film "hillary: the movie" prior to the election?

this scotus decision leaves me worried... but i'm also flabbergasted that "the left" didn't rail against moore's blatant "corporate advertising" in an election year, yet now their feathers are all ruffled

I haven't even watched this video yet but knowing how the comments tend to go, let me preemptively say that wondering about and investigating another element at play during the events of 9/11 DOES NOT equal "Bush was behind it" or "the government knew all about it" or what-have-you.

Okay? They are, in fact, not the same thing at all.

It's perfectly acceptable to apply critical thinking at all times and for all occasions. Period. But you jackals have to understand that the people applying said critical thinking are not necessarily all anti-gub'ment, anti-Bush, anti-Americans. Some can simply smell bullshit clearer than others.

Okay?

Fine. Proceed.

>> ^Skeeve:

While I agree with a lot of things he said (particularly things he says in this video), people have to remember that he wasn't detained or killed for saying the things he said - as he would have been in many other countries (now or historically).


You could get away with saying that in most countries. So you agree with Carlin that the public have no say in politics at large but on the bright side you can say whatever you want. Wasn't it America where tons of people got a visit from the police for posessing anti-bush material. At least if you lived in north korea you'd know you were a slave.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Terrorists will do nothing differently because of this egregious mistake.
The message being sent to the enemy is: "We are weak."
You know and I know it's not weakness to treat an enemy humanely. However, what WE think doesn't count, because the terrorists from Russian and Arabic cultures view all concessions and negotiations as weakness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's little use debating the dangers of a suicidal, homicidal enemy with folks who deny evil exists or believe jihadists can be reasoned with. It's quite obviously a very dangerous world and Democrats have a terrible track record of protecting America.
You fellows like to pretend Bush has somehow shut down or taken away your rights. Bullshit. Name ONE of YOUR rights being affected, and I don't mean cut-n-paste hearsay from the Daily Komatose. How has YOUR life been affected? Taps on your phone? Waterboarding suspects at the local library? Credit score? Resume? The very act of typing anti-Bush or anti-government sentiment shows you don't believe you're in any danger whatsoever. Even the presses of the traitorous New York Slimes continue to roll.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Think of the Franklin quote the next time you want government to take over your health care and give vote-buying "tax cuts" to people who don't pay taxes.


You're having a conversation with yourself. You don't even listen to what people say right here in this thread, you just respond to Rush Limbaugh inspired straw men that bear no resemblance to the people on "the left".

The best part is how you can't even go 2 straight responses without stooping to childish name calling, as if it makes your argument stronger.

You even recycled the Ben Franklin quote, without responding to the critique that it applies to your position on foreign policy more readily than health care.

Franklin was talking about limits on search and seizure, freedom of speech, and habeas corpus, not the freedom to have your medical treatment denied by pencil pushers, and I think deep down you know that.

Oh, and BTW, if criticism of Bush was anti-government and treason, any and all criticism of Obama is now anti-government treason. Turn yourself in, or we'll be forced to dispatch black helicopters (now with black pilots) to collect you, and send you to experience "enhanced interrogation" as an "unlawful combatant".

Don't like it? Well, I'm sure at some point, years later, someone will give you a show trial to air your complaints, dismiss them, and then send you back to your cell indefinitely.

Terrorists will do nothing differently because of this egregious mistake.

The message being sent to the enemy is: "We are weak."

You know and I know it's not weakness to treat an enemy humanely. However, what WE think doesn't count, because the terrorists from Russian and Arabic cultures view all concessions and negotiations as weakness.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's little use debating the dangers of a suicidal, homicidal enemy with folks who deny evil exists or believe jihadists can be reasoned with. It's quite obviously a very dangerous world and Democrats have a terrible track record of protecting America.

You fellows like to pretend Bush has somehow shut down or taken away your rights. Bullshit. Name ONE of YOUR rights being affected, and I don't mean cut-n-paste hearsay from the Daily Komatose. How has YOUR life been affected? Taps on your phone? Waterboarding suspects at the local library? Credit score? Resume? The very act of typing anti-Bush or anti-government sentiment shows you don't believe you're in any danger whatsoever. Even the presses of the traitorous New York Slimes continue to roll.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Think of the Franklin quote the next time you want government to take over your health care and give vote-buying "tax cuts" to people who don't pay taxes.

This is why the internet is so god-damned dangerous. People can post anything out of context without ever checking anything and with no penalty. Mind you, I'm anti-bush/mcpalin, but there is a LOT of garbage on both sides which needs to be whiddled out.

>> ^lucky760:
Wow, is that how it came across to you? It wasn't an anti-Bush tirade, rougy. It is making fun of 9/11 and moon landing conspiracy theories. I was certain I'd made that extremely obvious.


I think that making fun of people who are skeptical of their government is pretty shallow.

I think that equating moon landing conspiracies with all other conspiracies is likewise quite shallow.

I do think 9/11 was an inside job, just as I think that the JFK assasination was an inside job.

And I don't think these videos "bust" any myth.

Wow, is that how it came across to you? It wasn't an anti-Bush tirade, rougy. It is making fun of 9/11 and moon landing conspiracy theories. I was certain I'd made that extremely obvious.

Downvote for turning skepticism into an Anti-Bush tirade.

>> ^seltar:
Somebody should arrange an Anti-Bush Flashmob, and storm all his public talks..
Would love to see 100 mimes miming "Impeach Him!", "Worst President Ever!" etc.


MIMES!

Finally, good for something.