• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Huntsman objects to ad featuring adopted kids

misterman said:
Um, last time I checked, people created and bought ads, not machines or corporations.

They may have done so anonymously, but that's a different issue. I think they have every right to.

This is called freedom of speech. It's just the same as if someone made a comment about his daughters here on this site, and that would be anonymous too.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't the same thing because it doesn't cost tens of thousands of dollars to post a message on a forum.
 
AdamT said:
No, it isn't the same thing because it doesn't cost tens of thousands of dollars to post a message on a forum.
Click to expand...

It is the same legally.

The First Amendment says nothing about money.
 
Not to be stereotypical, but the ad is exactly something I would expect of a 20 year old Ron Paul supporter. The attempt to now attribute it to someone on the Huntsman campaign is also exactly something I would expect of a (different) 20 year old Ron Paul supporter. And this "evidence" strikes me as exactly something I would expect of (other) 20 year old Ron Paul supporters. The one that says he got a call from Huntsman himself thanking him is laughably ridiculous.

To be clear, all candidates have their share of immature constituents.
 
misterman said:
It is the same legally.

The First Amendment says nothing about money.
Click to expand...

Which is beside the point since I'm arguing that the law should be changed. No one is arguing that this is illegal under existing law, so you can put that strawman to bed.
 
AdamT said:
Which is beside the point since I'm arguing that the law should be changed. No one is arguing that this is illegal under existing law, so you can put that strawman to bed.
Click to expand...

How would you change the law? (What law, by the way?)
 
AdamT said:
Which is beside the point since I'm arguing that the law should be changed. No one is arguing that this is illegal under existing law, so you can put that strawman to bed.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the Constitution, but since you want to change that too, point taken.

I am confident you'll fail to be the first in our history to take a right away from the Bill of Rights.
 
misterman said:
I was talking about the Constitution, but since you want to change that too, point taken.

I am confident you'll fail to be the first in our history to take a right away from the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

I'm confident that you're right, I'm afraid. But who knows? We succeeded in taking away the right to enslave black people. Maybe we can take away the right to bribe government officials, too.
 
AdamT said:
I'm confident that you're right, I'm afraid. But who knows? We succeeded in taking away the right to enslave black people. Maybe we can take away the right to bribe government officials, too.
Click to expand...

Bribery is already illegal. Free speech is protected by the constitution. You clearly can't tell the difference.

I wonder if you've ever given money to a candidate (most of the money to candidates comes from individuals like you and me). Did you feel guilty? Was it bribery?

Ever put up a sign or a bumper sticker for a candidate? Did you turn yourself in to the cops?

Anyone who dares to call free speech about politics - and complain about a Supreme Court case that prevented an American from going to jail for daring to release a film about a candidate - is pathetic, and to be feared.
 
misterman said:
Um, last time I checked, people created and bought ads, not machines or corporations.

They may have done so anonymously, but that's a different issue. I think they have every right to.

This is called freedom of speech. It's just the same as if someone made a comment about his daughters here on this site, and that would be anonymous too.
Click to expand...
No, that's not a different issue, that's what I said.

They do have every right to. The right to say whatever they want would still remain as is. The right to do so anonymously is the aspect we should reconsider.
 
misterman said:
Bribery is already illegal. Free speech is protected by the constitution. You clearly can't tell the difference.

I wonder if you've ever given money to a candidate (most of the money to candidates comes from individuals like you and me). Did you feel guilty? Was it bribery?

Ever put up a sign or a bumper sticker for a candidate? Did you turn yourself in to the cops?

Anyone who dares to call free speech about politics - and complain about a Supreme Court case that prevented an American from going to jail for daring to release a film about a candidate - is pathetic, and to be feared.
Click to expand...

Has anyone ever given you a gift of several million dollars? If they did, do you think you might feel beholden to them? If they wanted a little favor, you reckon you'd do it for them? Especially if it doesn't cost you anything?

Of course it's not as direct as handing over a bag of cash in exchange for fighter contract, or a tax loophole, or a construction contract, but the result is the same.
 
This is artificially created "news." There are billions of You Tube videos. Millions of political ones. This would not have been seen by 100 people had the Huntsman people given it to FOX and other networks - and then whined of it. It was the Huntsman campaign the advertised the obscure You Tube video no one would have ever seen.

Then, bizarrely, put his own daughter up as the campaign spokesperson to FOX to complaint of his family being injected into the campaign wrongly, as she then went on to explain HER next campaign stops for her father - using all the exact worded campaign talking points to do so. .

A person has no legitimate basis to find some obscure slander against him/herself, massively circulate it him/herself and then bitterly complaint of the slander he/she is spreading him/herself.

This is a non-story other than the Huntsman campaign wanted it to be. It was NOT an ad, it was a You Tube video. Paul is an asshole but he didn't approve of this. Who actually publicized it was the Huntsman campaign itself.

Creating a false accusation to then gain publicity by defending as a dirty trick of the other side used to be a favorite Carl Rove trick. Like claiming his office had been bugged accusing Democrats of it, then later learned the battery life so low only Rowe could have planted it himself.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Has anyone ever given you a gift of several million dollars? If they did, do you think you might feel beholden to them? If they wanted a little favor, you reckon you'd do it for them? Especially if it doesn't cost you anything?
Click to expand...

This doesn't involve anyone giving any candidate any money though.

If you think supporting a candidate, and saying so, and spending money to say so, is nothing more than corruption - and not simply democracy at work - then I think you should rethink it.
 
misterman said:
This doesn't involve anyone giving any candidate any money though.

If you think supporting a candidate, and saying so, and spending money to say so, is nothing more than corruption - and not simply democracy at work - then I think you should rethink i.
Click to expand...
That just depends on who the recipient of the cash IS. Banker/broker cash in the pocket of Obama or democrats is just by golly a good thing. Anyone else...and...well...Occupy!!!! Occupy!!!
 
misterman said:
This doesn't involve anyone giving any candidate any money though.
Click to expand...

Of course it's giving the candidate money!! Open your eyes! These PACs exist for the sole purpose of giving away free advertising to their candidate of choice. That advertising is worth millions and millions of dollars.
 
AdamT said:
Of course it's giving the candidate money!! Open your eyes! These PACs exist for the sole purpose of giving away free advertising to their candidate of choice. That advertising is worth millions and millions of dollars.
Click to expand...

So what? It's supposed to benefit the candidate. That's why they're expressing their opinions. Free speech sucks, huh?

What if a union endorses a candidate? That's a huge benefit to the candidate. Should that be banned too? What if the union spends money to tell its members that it endorsed? Would that be corruption?

What if some group asked its members to go out and volunteer for a candidate? That's worth alot - is that corruption?

You simply can't declare that something is corrupt simply because it happens to benefit a candidate. Even if you can measure the benefit in monetary terms.
 
MaggieD said:
Of course it does. Money is fungible.
Click to expand...

Not quite. If I buy an ad saying you are awesome, I didn't give you any money. Now, you may argue that it's an in-kind contribution, and that's fine, but the only problem is that it involves my constitutionally-protected freedom of speech.

What if I simply endorsed you, without spending any money? That's worth something to you, so should it be regulated too?

The idea that someone should be sent to prison simply because they dared to express an opinion about a political candidate - and dared to spend money to express that opinion - is scary. The Citizens United case involved a group distributing a film. The FEC said the law it overturned gave it the power to ban any book that mentioned a candidate (since most book publishing involves money spent by corporations). You actually approve of that? Imagine Micheal Moore being hauled off to jail for one of his films. Imagine book authors being sent to jail simply for writing books that criticize candidates for office.
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
What if a union endorses a candidate? That's a huge benefit to the candidate. Should that be banned too? What if the union spends money to tell its members that it endorsed? Would that be corruption?
Click to expand...

Yes, it absolutely would be and it absolutely should be banned. The union's job is to represent its members in negotiations with management; they have no business playing politics or misappropriating union funds to do so.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Yes, it absolutely would be and it absolutely should be banned. The union's job is to represent its members in negotiations with management; they have no business playing politics or misappropriating union funds to do so.
Click to expand...

Read the First Amendment. They can say whatever they want.
 
misterman said:
Not quite. If I buy an ad saying you are awesome, I didn't give you any money. Now, you may argue that it's an in-kind contribution, and that's fine, but the only problem is that it involves my constitutionally-protected freedom of speech.

What if I simply endorsed you, without spending any money? That's worth something to you, so should it be regulated too?
Click to expand...

PACs exist because organizations are working around campaign donation laws. Campaign finance laws severely limit corporate and labor union donations. The intent of these laws is being circumvented. We desperately need campaign finance reform...but that's the fox-henhouse principle and won't be happening any time soon.

Under federal election laws, PACs can legally contribute only $5,000 to a candidate committee per election (primary, general or special). They can also give up to $15,000 annually to any national party committee, and $5,000 annually to any other PAC. However, there is no limit to how much PACs can spend on advertising in support of candidates or in promotion of their agendas or beliefs. PACs must register with and file detailed financial reports of monies raised and spent to the Federal Election Commission.
Click to expand...
 
MaggieD said:
PACs exist because organizations are working around campaign donation laws. Campaign finance laws severely limit corporate and labor union donations. The intent of these laws is being circumvented. We desperately need campaign finance reform...but that's the fox-henhouse principle and won't be happening any time soon.
Click to expand...

Right. In the bizarro world of today's Supreme Court, it's possible to say that individuals can be limited to donations of $2,500 to a campaign, because larger amounts would create, at the very least, the appearance of corruption. But if they want to, individuals and corporations can donate ANY amount -- say $25,000,000 -- to a PAC dedicated to electing a candidate, and that creates no impermissible appearance of corruption.
 
MaggieD said:
PACs exist because organizations are working around campaign donation laws. Campaign finance laws severely limit corporate and labor union donations. The intent of these laws is being circumvented. We desperately need campaign finance reform...but that's the fox-henhouse principle and won't be happening any time soon.
Click to expand...

Too damn bad about the intent of campaign finance laws. They may not violate the Constitution.

If you view the Constitution as just an obstacle to regulation, well, too damn bad too.

Yes, campaign laws limit DONATIONS. But not speech. Donations are money going directly to a candidate to use as he/she sees fit. Free speech is free speech. It cannot be regulated, even if it happens to help a candidate in a way that a donation might.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom