• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP says Schultz's testing waters on air; Schultz says he's not running

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,845
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
GOP says Schultz's testing waters on air; Schultz says he's not running - Michael Calderone - POLITICO.com

Basically, the Republicans raise the argument Schultz exploring the possibility of running on the air is illegal under campaign laws. There is a case to be made, and it's telling that Chris Matthews declined to do that same thing, because of the law.

For the record, I think the laws themselves are wrong, unconstitutional, and antithetical to freedoms of speech, the press, and association.

But it's also true that those who support such campaign laws are far more likely than not to be on Schultz's side of things.

So, it's an interesting story.
 
GOP says Schultz's testing waters on air; Schultz says he's not running - Michael Calderone - POLITICO.com

Basically, the Republicans raise the argument Schultz exploring the possibility of running on the air is illegal under campaign laws. There is a case to be made, and it's telling that Chris Matthews declined to do that same thing, because of the law.

For the record, I think the laws themselves are wrong, unconstitutional, and antithetical to freedoms of speech, the press, and association.

But it's also true that those who support such campaign laws are far more likely than not to be on Schultz's side of things.

So, it's an interesting story.
seems like a non story. what case could be made about ed saying he was flattered to be considered?
 
Great, so all we have to do to get any commentator/pundit/wonk/conman (or pick your own epithet) off the air is to proffer them as a political candidate? SWEET, I think Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity would make great Congressmen... :2wave:
 
certainly did not sound like he is inclined to toss his hat into the ring on msnbc this morning
but he also did not absolutely rule it out, either
if he does run, he should expect a FEC challenge waiting
i'm thinking the GOP is afraid of his candidacy and is putting up any barrier it can; thus, the threat
 
I'm skeptical that North Dakota can really stand progressive liberalism like some thought as a result of the somewhat competitive field of the state in 2008. For one thing, be skeptical of propping up the young people of this state. They are an unreliable demographic, and they are also unlikely to stay in the state for long. Second, we do not have a strong progressive liberal base here. That's the reality.
 
certainly did not sound like he is inclined to toss his hat into the ring on msnbc this morning
but he also did not absolutely rule it out, either
if he does run, he should expect a FEC challenge waiting
i'm thinking the GOP is afraid of his candidacy and is putting up any barrier it can; thus, the threat
personally, i don't really care for the guy, although his politics are pretty much my politics. i don't see that any challenge would hold water though.
 
i do.....a lot of smoke, it seems to me.

It would help if you explained how you think they got it wrong, because they went into some detail. But that's up to you.
 
It would help if you explained how you think they got it wrong, because they went into some detail. But that's up to you.
okay, first of all, i don't see where his words "promoted his candidacy", as claimed in the letter. merely having a discussion about somehting he was asked to consider doesn't seem to be a violation.

he's said he's flattered, honored and intrigued, and spoke of future professional opportunities, although the letter does not provide any context to that statement.

i fail to see how this promoted his candidacy, as he doesn't have a candidacy. they can't even begin to prove that he is soliciting feedback, nor has he solicited contributions.
 
okay, first of all, i don't see where his words "promoted his candidacy", as claimed in the letter. merely having a discussion about somehting he was asked to consider doesn't seem to be a violation.

he's said he's flattered, honored and intrigued, and spoke of future professional opportunities, although the letter does not provide any context to that statement.

If what was said in the letter is accurate, he spent a length of time talking about that particular future opportunity.


i fail to see how this promoted his candidacy, as he doesn't have a candidacy.

No one said he did, only that he was raising the possibility of it, which is what any potential candidate does before they actually declare. The argument isn't that he has a candidacy, but that he was exploring the idea, an activity for which there are regulations.

Thus, arguendo, he was using the facilities and air time MSNBC provides to engage exploratory activity, which, as Schultz didn't pay for it, is an in-kind contribution.


they can't even begin to prove that he is soliciting feedback

He solicits feedback on his show and what he says as a matter of course (all the talking-head screamers do); his potential candidacy was a topic of his show.

And according to MSNBC, through the operations of MSNBC, he indeed got a lot of feedback, which is the other part of what they're calling the in-kind contribution.


nor has he solicited contributions.

Doesn't have to solicit for them in order to have received them.


Now, I probably have to announce unequivocally again then I find the entire system of regulation of this kind of thing repugnant to the First Amendment, so I don't personally care what Schultz says or does or if MSNBC helps, because I think it should be legal for them to do so.

Nonetheless, the regulations do exist, and it's arguable they were violated.
 
Last edited:
The GOP can say all they want but the fact is Schultz can't run he's not eligible. He hasn't lived in North Dakota for the last 5 years as stipulated under state law. He's claimed residency in Minnesota for the past two years. Non-story.
 
great, so all we have to do to get any commentator/pundit/wonk/conman (or pick your own epithet) off the air is to proffer them as a political candidate? Sweet, i think glenn beck and sean hannity would make great congressmen... :2wave:

<<<<---------------supports this idea!!!!!
 
The GOP can say all they want but the fact is Schultz can't run he's not eligible. He hasn't lived in North Dakota for the last 5 years as stipulated under state law. He's claimed residency in Minnesota for the past two years. Non-story.

His eligibility isn't the issue raised.
 
If what was said in the letter is accurate, he spent a length of time talking about that particular future opportunity.




No one said he did, only that he was raising the possibility of it, which is what any potential candidate does before they actually declare. The argument isn't that he has a candidacy, but that he was exploring the idea, an activity for which there are regulations.

Thus, arguendo, he was using the facilities and air time MSNBC provides to engage exploratory activity, which, as Schultz didn't pay for it, is an in-kind contribution.




He solicits feedback on his show and what he says as a matter of course (all the talking-head screamers do); his potential candidacy was a topic of his show.

And according to MSNBC, through the operations of MSNBC, he indeed got a lot of feedback, which is the other part of what they're calling the in-kind contribution.




Doesn't have to solicit for them in order to have received them.


Now, I probably have to announce unequivocally again then I find the entire system of regulation of this kind of thing repugnant to the First Amendment, so I don't personally care what Schultz says or does or if MSNBC helps, because I think it should be legal for them to do so.

Nonetheless, the regulations do exist, and it's arguable they were violated.
i guess we'll have to see. discussing a possible candidacy and exploring a possible candidacy can be 2 separate activities. he did not raise the possiblilty of a candidacy, someone else did.

i highly doubt he has retained any contributions he might have received, that's probably a moot point.
 
I guess we should discuss Palin running for political office now in the same context as Schultz eh?
 
i guess we'll have to see. discussing a possible candidacy and exploring a possible candidacy can be 2 separate activities. he did not raise the possiblilty of a candidacy, someone else did.

Doesn't matter if he explored it after the possibility was raised.

i highly doubt he has retained any contributions he might have received, that's probably a moot point.

You seem to think the "contributions" are about money. That isn't the case.
 
Back
Top Bottom