Tim re I probably would not buy stock based on a Yahoo post. I also would not make it illegal to post on Yahoo or to buy stock based on such a post.
First off, you don't have to make your version of free speech illegal; you just have to make it uneconomical. How? By publicly financing campaigns, one can set terms of getting the money. The government does this all the time. If you are going to do an add termed negative,then you must give the opponent time to respond on your buck. You still have the right too, but it would cut back on these types of adds drastically. As far as issue advocacy, same thing. If you advocate a position fine. If you mention someone as being against it, give him time to respond. That would still preserve free speech rights;preserve the rights of the accused, but kill negative advertising. How could this wonderful thing be done. With public financing. How. By making money available for the campaigns, you can outlaw the campaign donations for what they are, a bribe; just as they now outlaw free gifts. How is it that any other gift of any kind is outlawed because it is deemed a bribe, yet one can contribute thousands in cash and that isn't called a bribe? If gifts are a bribe, so is cash. If you want to allow donation to the parties, fine; but the money has to be used to promote party interests, not attacking someone else. That is the spirit the money was given, and that is how it should be used.
Elections are not court trials and they should not be subject to the same restirctions of court trials. <<
The primary reason the accused is always given a chance to respond to the accuser is that it is the only way to assure fairness. Why are you against fairness in elections. You claim to want fair honest elections, why not do the fair thing? You say; let the opponent respond on his own time with his own money. The trouble with that is that it takes time to respond to any attack, especially if you want to run a counter add; and people normally remember the first attack, not the later denial. In addition, the opponent may not have the money you do, and is therefore unable to defend himself. You got the money, you got the issue, why not let the opponent try to defend himself. That will make your issue believeable if the opponent can't respond effectively.
No I do not think the current canidates have used only a minimum amount of completly honest negative campaigning. So you point out somthing bad or imperfect. However not everything bad or imperfect should be illegal.
You will note that I don't need to make these things illegal. I just want fair elections and being fair means allowing the opponent fair time to address the charges.
Why do parties demand money for access.
Because 1 - They need money and 2 - The amount of access a politician can give is not unlimited. It has to be allocated in some way.
Surely you jest. There are many ways of allocating time besides having the biggest briber win. How about allocating time according to the needs of the district one is trying to represent. How about that for a novel idea? Secondly, why do they need money. We pay them a wage, that is their job. If they can't do their job for the money they are pd; then quit; and let someone who actually is in it to represent the district; do it.
Note - I do not consider takeing any money from special interests to be a bribe. If I was in the House of Representatives, I would take special interest money.
I have no doubt you would take the money, because you justify it by saying giving money is not a bribe. And I have no doubt you would make a good politician. Denial seems to be one of your fortes. Why wouldn't money be a bribe just like any other gift? Why the differentiation?
Fighting against taxes or regulations is more of a defensive measure, avoiding government control and trying to keep some of there profit. This is particuarly true in the case of the tobacco industry, which is really getting slamed by government now.<<<
Isn't this what I have been saying all along; that specials interests are using these campaign donations as bribes to get out of paying their fair share of taxes; or escape regulations , or get contracts they don't necessarily deserve. If our representative thinks the taxes are fair, then no amount of bribes should change his mind; but it the taxes are unfair, then that is his job to assess fair taxes. Why do these people need money to do their job? They are paid a fair wage. |
