4 ms·

> Because then the government gets to control what is or is not allowed. And I guarantee that whichever party is in power at the moment will use that to try to

by shkkmo 7y ago

> Because then the government gets to control what is or is not allowed. And I guarantee that whichever party is in power at the moment will use that to try to stay in power. The BCRA (McCain–Feingold) was a fairly balanced piece of legislation with reasonable and practical limits that was passed in a bipartisan manner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act I see no reason why limiting corporate financing of electioneering means we are on a slippery slope to a loss of individual political speech.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
The Citizens United case showed the slippery slope we were on. Michael Moore was allowed to release a movie about how a particular presidential candidate was bad just before the 2004 election. But when Citizens United tried to do the same thing in 2008, the FEC said it was a campaign ad and stopped them. If the law had been allowed to stand that way, we would have ended up in a world where popular media figures have special speech privileges you or I don't get.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  I don't think your facts are correct. Farenheit 9/11 was released 4 months prior to the 2004 election and is thus outside the 60 day window and not prohibited by Mcain-Feingold. I would have wholeheartedly supported that movie being blocked as electioneering inside the 60 day window. Edit: Specifically, Citizens United was prohibited for paying to show or advertise within 30 days of the democratic primaries. > The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

by shkkmo 7y ago

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

The Citizens United case showed the slippery slope we were on. Michael Moore was allowed to release a movie about how a particular presidential candidate was bad just before the 2004 election. But when Citizens United tried to do the same thing in 2008, the FEC said it was a campaign ad and stopped them. If the law had been allowed to stand that way, we would have ended up in a world where popular media figures have special speech privileges you or I don't get.

shkkmo 7y ago
I don't think your facts are correct. Farenheit 9/11 was released 4 months prior to the 2004 election and is thus outside the 60 day window and not prohibited by Mcain-Feingold. I would have wholeheartedly supported that movie being blocked as electioneering inside the 60 day window. Edit: Specifically, Citizens United was prohibited for paying to show or advertise within 30 days of the democratic primaries. > The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC