Colbert's Super PAC Add

misterman · Jan 20, 2012

Catawba said:
Who ever has the most money has the most speech. That's what the founders intended I'm sure.

No, the clearly intended that all speech be rationed. Everyone gets their share - three minutes per person, and then you're done for the year.

I guess you missed they were highlighting that fines could simply be paid from the Super PAC donations?

You're still missing it.

misterman · Jan 20, 2012

Gina said:
The mockery they are making of the process. It's going against the GOP candidates at this time as they have center stage.

Is it?

The other ad, using "Mitt the Ripper", illustrates the point better. The power of the Super PAC lies in the ability of those controlling them, to run any ad they want, making outrageous statements, and the candidate cannot not be called on it, as Romney has already proven.

Why would a candidate be called on a statement he didn't make?

So here comes Colbert and Stewart. They skewered Romney. No matter how obvious the joke, he and his campaign cannot enjoy that imagery.

So now YOU are enjoying the commentary that a SuperPAC made about a candidate!

They are free to say anything, no matter how outrageous and no candidate can be held accountable.

Yes, exactly. People can say whatever they want. Imagine that.

Can you imagine how screwed up it would be if the only people who were allowed to talk about the candidates were the candidates themselves?

Pandering? It's possible. Maybe they don't see what I have laid out. It will come back to bite them.[/QUOTE]

Catawba · Jan 20, 2012

misterman said:
No, the clearly intended that all speech be rationed. Everyone gets their share - three minutes per person, and then you're done for the year.

You're still missing it.

This is supposed to be a response?

Gina · Jan 20, 2012

misterman said:
Is it?

Certainly, as I already demonstrated. "Mitt the Ripper"? Pushing Cain when he's out of the race? Are these ads in support of the actual candidates?

Why would a candidate be called on a statement he didn't make?

Ask Gingrich.

So now YOU are enjoying the commentary that a SuperPAC made about a candidate!

The Colbert/Stewart ads, yes. I opened my post calling it brilliant.

Yes, exactly. People can say whatever they want. Imagine that.

Can you imagine how screwed up it would be if the only people who were allowed to talk about the candidates were the candidates themselves?

I don't know why you are being so obtuse. Yes, people can say whatever they want, but candidates have to watch what they say about their opponents. Gingrich was outraged at the ad Romney's Super PAC ran against him. He spent a week crying about it to the media. Romney replied over and over that he could not tell them to stop running the ad. He wiggled a bit in saying, he hopes if there are inaccuracies they would be corrected, but his Super PAC ran the ads, without Mitt's explicit approval and the damage was done. If his name had been on them, that's a different story altogether and Gingrich was in a stronger position to call Romney a liar.

People have always been free to run ads against the candidate running against their candidate, but the firewall erected via the CU ruling, allows them to hold up their hands and disavow responsibility. Colbert and Stewart addressed that in the video clip. They could tell the Super PAC, in public to stop it, as Santorum said, but Romney didn't.

American · Jan 20, 2012

misterman said:
How does money make your vote not count?

If you cast your ballot, and you're not voting in Florida in 2000 of course, or maybe Chicago, your vote counts no matter what.

This is nonsense, the only thing that happened in Florida was a lopsided recount was stopped. The state election official also tried to ignore military absentee ballots.

Courts weigh military absentee ballots and manual recounts in Florida election dispute - CNN

COUNTING THE VOTE: THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS; Review Military Votes, Florida Attorney General Says - New York Times

Tucker Case · Jan 20, 2012

misterman said:
"the men could be subject to a fine for their comments"

Now there's an irony they failed to notice.

He didn't actually say they could be subject to a fine for their comments.

He said that the worst thing they would face is a 4 to 6 figure fine when they asked if they could be jailed if they were found to be coordinating with each other. They then asked if they could pay any fines they got with the superPAC money, and the lawyer said it was possible.

There's really no irony. The author simply didn't word things accurately.

misterman · Jan 20, 2012

Gina said:
Ask Gingrich.

I'm asking you.

The Colbert/Stewart ads, yes. I opened my post calling it brilliant.

And you don't see anything ironic about THAT.

Yes, people can say whatever they want, but candidates have to watch what they say about their opponents. Gingrich was outraged at the ad Romney's Super PAC ran against him. He spent a week crying about it to the media. Romney replied over and over that he could not tell them to stop running the ad. He wiggled a bit in saying, he hopes if there are inaccuracies they would be corrected, but his Super PAC ran the ads, without Mitt's explicit approval and the damage was done. If his name had been on them, that's a different story altogether and Gingrich was in a stronger position to call Romney a liar.

But his name shouldn't be on them because he didn't run them.

If I say Gingrich is an arrogant twit, should he get mad at Romney? I said it, not him.

People have always been free to run ads against the candidate running against their candidate, but the firewall erected via the CU ruling, allows them to hold up their hands and disavow responsibility.

Because they're actually not responsible.

If they are responsible, through coordination, they are committing a crime, and the answer is to prosecute them.

misterman · Jan 20, 2012

Tucker Case said:
He said that the worst thing they would face is a 4 to 6 figure fine when they asked if they could be jailed if they were found to be coordinating with each other.

Ah, okay, thanks.

So coordinating is illegal, and violators face legal repercussions, huh?

They then asked if they could pay any fines they got with the superPAC money, and the lawyer said it was possible.

So the law is weak. Let's strengthen it!

Gina · Jan 20, 2012

misterman said:
I'm asking you.

I thought it fairly obvious, hence my flippant reply. I guess I'll have to state the obvious. Does or does not the candidate support the statements made by the Super PAC? I already said as much in my last reply:

People have always been free to run ads against the candidate running against their candidate, but the firewall erected via the CU ruling, allows them to hold up their hands and disavow responsibility. Colbert and Stewart addressed that in the video clip. They could tell the Super PAC, in public to stop it, as Santorum said, but Romney didn't.

And you don't see anything ironic about THAT.

No. I don't. I think CU was a horrible decision for the reasons I have outlined, the lack of accountability when lies or half truths. The candidates themselves could never get away with that. But monied interests can do it at will. The reason I enjoy Colbert/Stewart's ads are for the reason I said in my first post, it turns that power against the candidates and their Super PACs. No irony except that which Colbert/Stewart are making of it.

But his name shouldn't be on them because he didn't run them.

They were run on his behalf, in support of his candidacy.

If I say Gingrich is an arrogant twit, should he get mad at Romney? I said it, not him.

See above ^^ for why that makes no sense.

misterman · Jan 20, 2012

Gina said:
Does or does not the candidate support the statements made by the Super PAC?

I don't know why it matters. I don't even remember your point any more. Never mind.

No. I don't. I think CU was a horrible decision for the reasons I have outlined, the lack of accountability when lies or half truths. The candidates themselves could never get away with that. But monied interests can do it at will.

Who the hell do you think you are?

People have a right to free speech. You don't get to tell them they have to be accountable, or not lie. They can say anything they want. It's that simple.

They were run on his behalf, in support of his candidacy.

So?

People aren't responsible for what other people say, even if someone say something about them, or something they like.

See above ^^ for why that makes no sense.

See above ^^ for why that makes no sense.

You don't seem to get the fact that independent expenditures are independent. They are simply people expressing their views. They are not the candidate or his campaign.

Now, some seem to have connections that point to them coordinating with the campaigns - but that is illegal already. It should be prosecuted. That's the answer, not censorship.

misterman · Jan 20, 2012

Gina,

Should Micheal Moore have gone to jail for this?

Should Obama be held responsible for what Moore wrote?

He dared to talk about who to vote for, and used corporate money to distribute his opinion.

Mike's Election Guide | MichaelMoore.com

Just one of many examples.

Tucker Case · Jan 20, 2012

misterman said:
Ah, okay, thanks.

So coordinating is illegal, and violators face legal repercussions, huh?

But there are many loopholes that allow for coordinating. Only a very specific kind of coordinating is illegal, apparently.

So the law is weak. Let's strengthen it!

Their goal is to show the flaws in the current law and expose what they are calling "Loopchasms".

jasonxe · Jan 20, 2012

The joke was a reference to the fairytale "Rumpelstiltskin" (sp?)....You's get his gold if you discovered his name....meaning, Paul's name is ignored (debates/media)...some of the talking heads didn't get it. Colbert's 'endorsement' was about Paul's character, not his policies. You can even go further that Paul spinning hay into gold in comparison to Paul wanting our worthless fiat money to be worth something (gold). I just found this to be interesting.

AdamT · Jan 20, 2012

Would it be acceptable to you if a lobbyist for ToxiCorp handed a Senator a briefcase containing $1 million in non-sequential, unmarked bills for the express purpose of obtaining an EPA waiver to pump waste into Potable Springs Acquifer? Wouldn't that "donation" just be considered speech according to your logic?

misterman said:
No, of course not. That's ridiculous. There's no speech involved, and the money is going directly to the candidate. And this huge difference is painfully obvious.

Don't be ridiculous -- it's the same thing. Money = Speech, according to your argument. By delivering a briefcase full of cash ToxiCorp is simply saying that it favors a change in the law. From a REALISTIC standpoint, there's no difference between that and ToxiCorp making a $1 million contribution to the candidate's super PAC and then, after the election, obtaining the favor in exchange for the $1 million donation. I don't want to shatter your illusions, but that's how the real world works, and it stinks.

How far will YOU go? Would it be acceptable to you if the government put someone in jail because he was distributing a film about a political candidate, and wanted to use corporate money to distribute that film (like most films)? Even if the corporation was not for profit?

There is nothing wrong, or political, about documentary films. The Supreme Court recognizes the difference between reporting and electioneering. So if it's just a story or documentary, of course it's absolutely fine. But if it's promotional piece for the candidate then it should be prohibited.

Would it be okay if the government banned books that criticized or praised candidates for office because they were published by corporations (like most books)?

That's less problematic because, in contrast to commercial advertising, individuals choose to buy books -- they aren't blasted into their living rooms whether they like it or not. Nonetheless, to the extent that the books qualify as electioneering, the production costs should be considered campaign contributions.

misterman · Jan 20, 2012

Tucker Case said:
But there are many loopholes that allow for coordinating. Only a very specific kind of coordinating is illegal, apparently.

And we should fix that. I strongly support fixing it.

misterman · Jan 20, 2012

AdamT said:
Don't be ridiculous -- it's the same thing. Money = Speech, according to your argument.

No it's not.

By delivering a briefcase full of cash ToxiCorp is simply saying that it favors a change in the law. From a REALISTIC standpoint, there's no difference between that and ToxiCorp making a $1 million contribution to the candidate's super PAC and then, after the election, obtaining the favor in exchange for the $1 million donation.

And I have pointed out that you could say the same thing about volunteering for a campaign, or opening a factory in a candidate's district, or endorsing him, or many other things, yet you wouldn't call those corruption. And you never respond to that point.

I don't want to shatter your illusions, but that's how the real world works, and it stinks.

Look, dude, I know plenty about this issue, so let's just leave out the "you're naive" stuff please.

There is nothing wrong, or political, about documentary films. The Supreme Court recognizes the difference between reporting and electioneering. So if it's just a story or documentary, of course it's absolutely fine. But if it's promotional piece for the candidate then it should be prohibited.

Really? Now you want to ban films too, just because they dare to talk about candidates?

That's less problematic because, in contrast to commercial advertising, individuals choose to buy books -- they aren't blasted into their living rooms whether they like it or not. Nonetheless, to the extent that the books qualify as electioneering, the production costs should be considered campaign contributions.

Wow.

You really have no idea what freedom of speech is, do you? The idea that speech is nothing but an end-run around government regulations is scary. It makes me wonder if our educational system has failed. I don't go around saying things like that much, but I'm serious.

You don't get to regulate ANY books, or films, or any of that. Do not touch. Even if they happen to--God forbid!--express an opinion about a candidate for office.

AdamT · Jan 20, 2012

misterman said:
And I have pointed out that you could say the same thing about volunteering for a campaign, or opening a factory in a candidate's district, or endorsing him, or many other things, yet you wouldn't call those corruption. And you never respond to that point.

And I've responded to your point at least three times. The degree of the contribution is what makes the case compelling. No politician is going to hand out big favors just because someone volunteered for his or her campaign. Same goes for an endorsement. An endorsement is also different insofar as any individual or group can only endorse one candidate per race. A factory is too indirect to be considered electioneering.

Look, dude, I know plenty about this issue, so let's just leave out the "you're naive" stuff please.

For my part, I've been a registered lobbyist on the state level, and I grew up in Washington and also lived there for many years as an adult. I know many people who work on the Hill, including several senators, and have also dealth with political matters professionally. I've seen politicians change their positions, literally before my eyes, based solely on the on the prospect of gaining or losing campaign contributions.

What is your practical, personal experience in politics that has made you so knowledgeable?

Really? Now you want to ban films too, just because they dare to talk about candidates?

No, obviously not if you read what I wrote.

You really have no idea what freedom of speech is, do you? The idea that speech is nothing but an end-run around government regulations is scary. It makes me wonder if our educational system has failed. I don't go around saying things like that much, but I'm serious.

You don't get to regulate ANY books, or films, or any of that. Do not touch. Even if they happen to--God forbid!--express an opinion about a candidate for office.

I wish I had your starry-eyed faith in human nature. Sadly I've seen enough to know that it is absurdly misplaced. I don't take free speech lightly but I am absolutely convinced that the campaign finance system in this country is THE number one problem afflicting our government. If we don't fix it nothing can be done to repair our broken political system.

Gina · Jan 20, 2012

misterman said:
I don't know why it matters. I don't even remember your point any more. Never mind.

You are welcome to read back and address it at any time.

Who the hell do you think you are?

A poster here like yourself, using this board to express my opinion, as you have done. I don't know why that offends you or causes you to ask that question.

People have a right to free speech. You don't get to tell them they have to be accountable, or not lie. They can say anything they want. It's that simple.
So?

People aren't responsible for what other people say, even if someone say something about them, or something they like.

I haven't said they don't have a right to free speech and if they do lie or wrongfully assail a candidate's character, the wronged party has a right to hold them accountable, not me.

Yes, they can say anything they want and then suffer the consequences for that, if there are any and so is the candidate in who's support they ran a false or misleading ad, unless they denounce it, of course.

You don't seem to get the fact that independent expenditures are independent. They are simply people expressing their views. They are not the candidate or his campaign.

This is what is wrong with CU and how the Super PACs would like to function, but both Gingrich and Romney have taken offense at ads run against them, so it would seem they have tried to hold each other accountable. Though they are not the candidate or the campaign, the candidate will end up defending the Super PAC instead of staying on message (as we saw in the debates). This is why campaigns are mostly careful in how they go negative. The fallout can be all consuming.

Now, some seem to have connections that point to them coordinating with the campaigns - but that is illegal already. It should be prosecuted. That's the answer, not censorship.

This goes back to my original reply, Colbert and Stewart have already made a farce of the laws against coordinating in that video and demonstrated how a candidate, Romney, could just tell the Super PAC to stop it in front of the media at any venue. Which was the primary point of that clip and why I thought it brilliant.

Gina · Jan 20, 2012

misterman said:
Gina,

Should Micheal Moore have gone to jail for this?

Should Obama be held responsible for what Moore wrote?

He dared to talk about who to vote for, and used corporate money to distribute his opinion.

Mike's Election Guide | MichaelMoore.com

Just one of many examples.

I have not suggested anyone go to jail. I don't know where you get that from.

It's a product, not an ad run on TV, radio or in print, oh, and a strawman as well.

AdamT · Jan 20, 2012

Gina said:
I have not suggested anyone go to jail. I don't know where you get that from.

It's a product, not an ad run on TV, radio or in print, oh, and a strawman as well.

Of course it's a strawman. A book isn't an advertisement. It's something that people choose to buy. And I guarantee you that the only people buying Moore's books are people who already support Obama and the Democrats.

misterman · Jan 20, 2012

AdamT said:
And I've responded to your point at least three times. The degree of the contribution is what makes the case compelling.

And you never tell me how you reconcile that with the Constitution. Nor do you tell me just how much is too much, and why you know.

No politician is going to hand out big favors just because someone volunteered for his or her campaign.

But if a union turned out a thousand volunteers....

Same goes for an endorsement.

Are you kidding? Heck, look at what Hillary got.

A factory is too indirect to be considered electioneering.

Speech about a candidate is also "indirect."

For my part, I've been a registered lobbyist on the state level, and I grew up in Washington and also lived there for many years as an adult. I know many people who work on the Hill, including several senators, and have also dealth with political matters professionally. I've seen politicians change their positions, literally before my eyes, based solely on the on the prospect of gaining or losing campaign contributions.

What is your practical, personal experience in politics that has made you so knowledgeable?

More than that.

I prefer not to say too much about myself. Too many nuts out there. But I have very very direct knowledge of campaign finance.

No, obviously not if you read what I wrote.

You do know that Citizen's United was about banning a film, don't you?

I wish I had your starry-eyed faith in human nature. Sadly I've seen enough to know that it is absurdly misplaced. I don't take free speech lightly but I am absolutely convinced that the campaign finance system in this country is THE number one problem afflicting our government. If we don't fix it nothing can be done to repair our broken political system.

I want to fix it too, just not by blatanatly violating the Bill of Rights.

misterman · Jan 20, 2012

AdamT said:
Of course it's a strawman. A book isn't an advertisement. It's something that people choose to buy. And I guarantee you that the only people buying Moore's books are people who already support Obama and the Democrats.

So what? Why is it different?

And here's the thing - the FEC's lawyers, in the Citizen's United trial, said the law that was overturned gave them the right to ban books!

misterman · Jan 20, 2012

Gina said:
I have not suggested anyone go to jail. I don't know where you get that from.

From Citizen's United.

The CU case involved a threat of prison time against someone who dared to try to distribute a film critical of a candidate.

It's a product, not an ad run on TV, radio or in print, oh, and a strawman as well.

It's speech. Just because you don't think it matters doesn't mean it doesn't. You can't simply declare that some kinds of speech (ads) aren't protected by the First Amendment just because you think they're different.

misterman · Jan 20, 2012

Gina said:
A poster here like yourself, using this board to express my opinion, as you have done.

Who is busy saying the speech of others should be censored, and making up all kinds of baseless reasons for it.

This is what is wrong with CU and how the Super PACs would like to function, but both Gingrich and Romney have taken offense at ads run against them, so it would seem they have tried to hold each other accountable. Though they are not the candidate or the campaign, the candidate will end up defending the Super PAC instead of staying on message (as we saw in the debates). This is why campaigns are mostly careful in how they go negative. The fallout can be all consuming.

Not exactly as reason to censor speech though.

This goes back to my original reply, Colbert and Stewart have already made a farce of the laws against coordinating in that video and demonstrated how a candidate, Romney, could just tell the Super PAC to stop it in front of the media at any venue. Which was the primary point of that clip and why I thought it brilliant.

If your only problem is with coordination, fine. Me too.

AdamT · Jan 20, 2012

misterman said:
So what? Why is it different?

And here's the thing - the FEC's lawyers, in the Citizen's United trial, said the law that was overturned gave them the right to ban books!

Honestly, I don't believe you have experience in campaign finance. You couldn't at still maintain that it isn't legalized bribery.

As for the books, as I explained -- twice -- it's different because a book isn't advertising. It's the equivalent of pay-for-view. And yes, I would have absolutely no problem with someone producing a pay-for-view special saying whatever they want to say. If someone wants to listen to it it's up to them. They don't have to see it popping up in middle of American Idol.

Hillary didn't get her post because she endorsed Obama. She got the job because was qualified and it fit in with Obama's "Team of Rivals" narrative.

Colbert's Super PAC Add

More options

misterman

misterman

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Gina

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

misterman

misterman

Gina

misterman

misterman

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

jasonxe

I support ██ ███

AdamT

misterman

misterman

AdamT

Gina

Gina

AdamT

misterman

misterman

misterman

misterman

AdamT

Colbert's Super PAC Add

Disappointed Evolutionist

Trump Grump Whisperer

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

I support &#9608;&#9608; &#9608;&#9608;&#9608;

I support ██ ███