C.H.
>> No. Organized groups of people have freedom of speech rights. If you dispute this, you're saying that the government could pass a law saying that neither the Nazi Party nor the Communist Party could say or print anything publicly. Do you really want to say this? Substitute the Sierra Club, the NAACP, and the Federalist Society (not to mention the Cato Institute) and see how many people here would agree that they have no freedom of speech rights, but can be censored at will by the government. Sorry. On this one, you lose. <<
I do not dispute that organized groups have freedom of speech, I just don't believe it is an absolute freedom to be applied in a universally unlimited fashion, as in yelling "fire" in a crowded theater where there is no fire, or in spending huge sums of money to distort a candidates views or lifestyle or history. I did not advocate government censorship. It was not intended to be a win/lose question, but rather an "agree/disagree" one. I agree with tha First Amendment, "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." But I read "...to assemble, and to petition the government...", as having to do with what we now call lobbying, peaceful protest marches, editorial opinions, etc for or against an issue: not directly for or against individual candidates in an election. The news media should report on every candidate, but not endorse any. Same for unions, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, the Cato Institute and any others. Organizations should be required to list the views of all candidates on any issue of importance to that organization.
>> 2. Nobody has so far come up with an acceptable way to define "legitimate" candiates. Was Bill Clinton a legitimate candidate in 1990? He was the classic "out of nowhere" candidate. How about Ross Perot. Everybody "knew" he couldn't win the election. Was he a legitimate candidate? Could a non-legitimate candidate with enough money become legitimate? <<
Me either, that's why I'm asking. But my gut feeling on the legitimacy of a candidate leans toward some version of the presently used yardstick (too flexible?) of the support he/she received in the previous election. I say "leans" because I don't claim to have all the answers, just some questions.
>> 3. Are you going to control just money, or other efforts on behalf a candidate? Can a corporation hire a thousand doorbellers and have it not count? Or a union send out a thousand members to doorbell and have it not count? <<
I think that if a union can persuade it's members to volunteer to ring doorbells unpaid on behalf of a candidate, that's fine. However I would draw a line on the HIRING of doorbell ringers by any group. That leads eventually to "He who has the most gold makes the rules"
Chas |
