Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (133806)	3/28/2001 11:41:33 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Two responses: The petrochemical company can reasonably be required to make it clear that it is promoting an industry position. This automatically undercuts its "purity" in the minds of many McCain-Feingold has a provision that requires such disclosures. Currently, the petrochemical industry can present itself as "apple pie" as it likes. But the main things is, it is not up to the legislature to determine what the proper amount of speech is The point is, advertising is not speech. That has been determined by precedent. And the legislature may constrain amounts of money to be spent; that has also been determined by precedent. The question is, is all political advertising "speech" or is it "advertising"? I think it is dangerously naive to say "it's speech" and to put no governor on the system whatsoever. Just examine the size of the money flows in the last campaign and the quids that have closely followed the quos as a result! There are choices that fall between micro-managing campaigns and doing nothing...

To: Neocon who wrote (133806)	3/28/2001 1:40:17 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

A better example would have been the teachers unions saturating the airwaves with pictures of handicapped children being left out in the cold if targeted vouchers were passed. While individual voters who support targeted, have to raise the money themselves. I would like to see the reaction of the newspaper-press, if McCain/Feingold limited their written opinions of a candidate during the last two months. Or put a cap on advertisements in the newspaper. The free speech crowd would have a fit then. After all, what really is the difference between written words being considered free speech, and visual images on a television. Both have impact, and both are designed to get a point across in order to change a voters mind. McCain/Fiengold does nothing but empower "big media" into being the only voice during the last few months of an election process. They can say anything they want on talking head shows, but the candidates have NO right to respond or refute their claims. The candidates free speech is therefore rescinded.