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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (76701)	2/23/2003 5:51:55 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

This is terrible. Congressmen are going to have to obey a law they passed! "Reason" February 21, 2003 Blindman's Rule Congress discovers the perils of legislating in the dark. By Jacob Sullum The New York Times reports that Robert Matsui was "surprised by [the] fine print" in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Matsui, the California representative who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, confesses, "I didn't realize what all was in it." Well, how could he have known? It's a complicated piece of legislation. You didn't expect him to actually read the bill prior to voting for it, did you? Anyway, 60 senators and 240 representatives voted for McCain-Feingold, a.k.a. Shays-Meehan, a.k.a. the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Surely at least some of them knew what all was in it. Maybe not. In a story that is simultaneously hilarious and appalling, the Times describes how members of Congress are only now discovering, to their dismay, the requirements of the campaign finance restrictions they enacted almost a year ago. "We sometimes leave our audiences in a state of complete shock," says a lawyer who teaches the intricacies of McCain-Feingold to Democratic legislators. His seminars elicit "a sort of slack-jawed amazement at how far this thing reached." A lawyer who runs similar sessions for Republicans says, "There's an initial stage where the reaction is, 'This can't be true.' And then there's the actual anger stage." That's a pretty good description of the average American's reaction upon learning that his elected representatives can't be troubled to familiarize themselves with the laws they pass. Instead they vote for a general idea, leaving the details to be worked out by administrative agencies and the courts. What they produce is not really law, in the sense of rules that people can reasonably be expected to understand and follow. Consider the tax code. Have you done your taxes yet? How do you feel knowing that if you pose the same tax question to five experts, you're liable to get five different answers? The state of the law is such that not even the most honest and diligent filer can face an audit with confidence. If you own or run a business, you have to guess at the meaning of such nebulous concepts as "reasonable accommodation" for the disabled and "hostile environments" that may constitute illegal sex discrimination. If you're a developer, you need to keep up with the ever-changing definition of "wetland." If you're an investor, you need to understand which conversations can subject you to "insider trading" charges. It's only fair that members of Congress are now experiencing some of the fear and uncertainty they routinely impose on the rest of us. The Times reports that "members of both parties have been startled" to learn that McCain-Feingold violations are felonies carrying penalties of up to five years in prison. "My message," says Rep. Thomas Reynolds (R-N.Y.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, "is, 'Don't be the first guy to find out if you go to jail.'" Matsui reports, "We have cautioned members: 'You have to really understand this law. And if you have any ambiguity, err on the side of caution.'" Under McCain-Feingold, it turns out, actions that seem trivial and innocent?speaking at a fund-raising event, attending a conference, letting your name appear on an invitation?can be construed as felonies. Who knew? Unfortunately, that is not a rhetorical question. Another aspect of the law that its supporters did not notice until recently is a requirement that candidates appear at the end of their attack ads to take responsibility for them. "I think it was a total surprise to people who don't read C.Q. with a yellow pen," says a Democratic media consultant. Apparently, it is unreasonable to expect members of Congress to read a publication as far afield from their concerns as Congressional Quarterly. It is richly satisfying to see the anxiety that McCain-Feingold's backers have created among themselves. But we should not lose sight of the fact that the law affects many other people, including the political activists whose speech it squelches. Some of the law's supporters, including President Bush, recognized that it was unconstitutional but figured the Supreme Court would sort things out. Something similar happened with the anti-terrorism legislation approved after the September 11 attacks, the final text of which was not even available to be read by those legislators who might have been inclined to do so. In such cases, I'm not sure which is a worse abdication of responsibility: voting for a law without knowing what's in it, or knowing and voting for it anyway. reason.com

To: KLP who wrote (76701)	2/26/2003 8:26:40 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

This is why I don’t read blogs. This is the sort of thing that emerges when every two-bit blowhard pseudointellectual wanker on the face of the planet gets a soapbox on which to stand and thump the chest, and it makes me yearn for the days when you couldn’t get a word before the public without squeezing it past a professional editor. The writer is reasonably articulate, in a shallow, facile way. There’s just no intellectual substance there. No effort at all is made to elucidate or justify the premises on which the arguments stand, many of which are simply insupportable. The result is hot air laid over thin air. I could shred these “arguments” without half trying, as could anyone with a half-dozen functioning synapses. I won’t bother doing it; it’s just not worth my time. Possibly the worst thing about the piece is its air of smug self-satisfaction. The whole thing positively reeks of “look at me, aren’t I smart?” Unfortunately, the only honest answer available is “no”. What disturbs me is that people who really ought to know better pick this stuff up and pass it on, simply because they support the same goal that the author supports, though hopefully for different reasons. There are serious, reasonable arguments on both sides of this discussion. There is also arrant stupidity on both sides of this discussion. Some of the inanities used to oppose this war, especially those emanating from the left, make me want to gag; they do my cause far more harm than good, and I wouldn’t dream of passing them on with approval simply because those who present them are nominally on my side. Nonsense doesn’t stop being nonsense because we approve of the cause pursued by its sponsors.