FoxPolitics.net - Appleton, WI News - What's really going on in the Fox Cities

FoxPolitics.net Blogs

FoxPolitics News

Local/State Govt Links

Salaries

• Appleton School District, 2007-08
• City of Appleton
• Town of Grand Chute
• City of Menasha
• City of Neenah

Candidates

City of Appleton

• Elected Officials
• Salary Watch
• Directory
• Mtg. Agendas/Minutes

Advisory Board

Blogroll

Selected News Sources:
Business Jrnl of Milw
Christian Science Monitor
Daily Caller
Drudge Report
La Crosse Tribune
Milw Journal Sentinel
National Journal
New York Times
Public Policy Forum
Real Clear Politics
Stateline
The Hill
TPM
Washington Examiner
Washington Post
Washington Times
WI State Journal
Selected Blogs - from the Right:
American Mind
Blaska's Blog
Boots & Sabers
Charlie Sykes
Dad29
Freedom Eden
Heritage Foundation
Jerry Bader Blog
Life Voice
Marketplace of Ideas
Marquette Warrior
Natl Review Online
No Runny Eggs
Patrick McIlheran
Real Debate Wisconson
RedState
Rhymes with Clown
Shark and Shepherd
The Lote Tree
Vox Populi
Wall Street Jrnl, Opinions
WI State Jrnl, Opinion
Wigderson Library & Pub
Wisconsin Family Voice
WPRI
Selected Blogs - from the Left:
Big Money Blog
Blogging Blue
Brenda Konkel
Caffeinated Politics
Capital Times
FightingBob
Folkbum's rambles
Griper Blade
Huffington Post
Lost Albatross
MAL Contends
Mid coast views
Moneyed Politicians
One Wisconsin Now
Open Left
Playground Politics
Political Environment
Rock Netroots
Talk to Tony
Uppity Wisconsin
Waxing America

Today's Blog: Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie
My husband and I and a couple hundred friends watched in Green Bay as ...(more)

Search Archives

Blogs

Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie (6/28/2011)

Time for Gov. Walker to talk more about the cake (3/4/2011)

Today, reality hits home (3/1/2011)

FoxPolitics News going on hiatus (1/28/2011)

Brown County Executive candidate forum Feb. 8 (1/28/2011)

Education done right (1/27/2011)

To Obama, the ‘We’ is Government (1/27/2011)

(more)

11/18/2008
Burri: Be honest. Campaign finance reform limits free speech

I have the right to speak my mind, and so do you. To express ourselves. In public, even. Right in front of everybody.

The question is: how absolute is that right? And more importantly: if it’s not absolute, where do we draw the lines?

Let’s be honest: rights aren’t absolute. There are limits. For example, our right to keep and bear arms stops somewhere short of grenade launchers. Our right of free speech stops short of slander and harassment and yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

But. I can stand on the street corner and tell people why I support one candidate or another. Why they should support my candidate. Why they shouldn’t support some other candidate.

I can spend five bucks on a box to stand on. I can spend another five bucks on a magic marker and a piece of posterboard.

I can, if I comply with certain laws, spend a hundred bucks sending letters to a hundred people, explaining my point of view and asking them to agree. Or pair up with a friend, putting in a hundred bucks each to buy a newspaper ad.

But what if I join up with a dozen people to buy radio ads? What if I join up with a thousand people and start buying TV ads?

At some point, I become part of a “mysterious group:”

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- State regulators are moving to crack down on the mysterious groups that run television ads that attempt to influence elections.

The Government Accountability Board decided Tuesday to propose rules that would require the groups to play by the same rules as the candidates themselves.

…The rules would apply to groups that spend money for purposes of influencing elections within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary.

“Mysterious,” in this case, meaning they don’t have to tell us who gives them money.

Other than that, well, there’s very little mystery. WEAC and SEIU are unions, looking to protect their workers and their turf. Wisconsin Right to Life supports pro-life issues. WMC supports business issues.

We know who they are. We know what they stand for. We can choose to join them, or – unions excepted – not. We can choose whether or not to add our voices – via our checkbooks – to theirs. That’s free speech.

They are, basically, large groups of people pooling their resources to advance the things they believe in.

Now, it’s also true that they’re a loophole to campaign finance laws. We can promote a cause or a candidate through them, without the same limitations that official campaigns have. They’ve become the path of least resistance, and the money has flowed their way. Thus, they can influence elections and – insert appearance of impropriety here – our political leaders.

Campaign Finance Reformers say that stricter limits on money are the answer, and they’re right: if we outlaw all third-party spending and force campaigns to use public financing, then we’ll have beaten the scourge of Big Money once and for all!

At the expense, of course, of free speech.

That isn’t what the CFRers want. At least, they say they don’t want that. They want to reduce the influence of money over our elections and our leaders: a worthy goal. But achieving it means placing serious restrictions on individual rights. Be honest. That’s the only way.

Are there limits on rights? Yes. Can we fiddle with those limits? Sure. As much as we want, if we think it’s necessary.

But if we do, let’s be honest enough to call it what it is. Limits on free speech.

Lance Burri is a contributor to the Badger Blog Alliance and occasionally blogs at his own site as well.

COMMENTS

I think that we need to regulate these groups to the extent that they are required to tell the truth. We have truth in advertising, a similar standard should apply to these organizations. During the last campaign season the St Petersburg Times had their truth-o-meter up and running and illustrated the extent to which both camps landed in the Liar-Liar-Pants-on-Fire catagory. We do democratic republic no good when people win elections or referenda get passed or judges get elected because they outright lie or distort the truth. We will never realize the goal of having an informed electorate as long as we permit these groups to influence our vote through deceptive advertising. Regulating them is not an affront to free speech it is a vote for honest, integrity and truthiness.

billie (Tue Nov 18 07:30:54 2008)

The very first "campaign finance reforms" were passed over 150 years ago, with the intent to silence opponents. Not much has changed.

Re. truthFULness, that went out the window long ago, even before we had semantic arguments about what the meaning of "is" is. How do you "regulate" truth?

emily matthews (Tue Nov 18 07:59:40 2008)

Yes, we need to regulate "the truth." Now, if we can only find a person who knows "the truth" we'll be in good stead.

Perhaps we should get Al Gore to tell us "the truth" about "global warming/climate change/Gore's retirement;" perhaps we could get someone to tell us the truth about the "eagle killer" chemical DDT (see http://junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html) that made Rachel Carson oodles of money back in 1962. Are these the "truths" we're intent upon telling - or stopping from being told?

Like the administrators of the fairness doctrine (grossly misnamed in my opinion) someone on the Truth Squad has to be the arbiter of truth. At the point where we acquiesce our individual birthright to determine truth for ourselves, we've given over yet one more of our personal responsibilities to some stranger who purports to know better. Once again someone wrote on the side of the barn the words, "...but the pigs are more equal."

Duke (Tue Nov 18 08:28:14 2008)

In the last weeks of the campaign, the Obama campaign - not a third-party group, but the campaign itself - ran ads touting Obama's respect for the Second Amendment and our right to own guns.

Was that "truth?" From my perspective, comparing the claim to Obama's past legislative positions, it was a bald-faced lie.

But maybe Obama just interprets the Second Amendment differently than I do. Maybe he'd say he DOES respect our right to keep and bear arms, but only as long as those arms can't be loaded with more than one round at a time.

A lot of these ads and claims that one side calls lies can be explained or spun like that.

Also, note that simply changing the money rules or reducing the amount of money won't change the ability to spin, explain, or lie. If lying is what you're worried about, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Lance Burri (Tue Nov 18 09:38:56 2008)

Emily, full public funding of campaigns would increase speech by allowing challengers at least some money to advertise. It would level the playing field, and that's why incumbents oppose it.

The cost? About $5 per taxpayer per year. The cost of the current system? Hundreds of times more than that.

Jack Lohman (Tue Nov 18 10:37:30 2008)

Emily you need a little more Colbert in your life. Then you would understand the FULL meaning of truthiness. :>)

billie (Wed Nov 19 08:04:11 2008)

Don't you just adore the full range of paranoia and conspiracy theory that permeates these responses. Why not dredge up the Trilateral Commission while you are at it. Joe McCarthy would be proud.

billie (Thu Nov 20 07:23:29 2008)

I'll split the difference. Let 'em spend what they want but they have to disclose who is contributing and abide by the same contribution limits as campaigns.

grumps (Mon Nov 24 13:19:20 2008)

The right to bear arms does not "stop somewhere short of the grenade launcher". For the first hundred and fifty years of our nation's existence anyone could and did own the full panoply of military hardware without regulation. That included artillery far more powerful than grenade launhers.

Nowadays there is federal regulation of certain military hardware. There is now a background check and a two hundred dollar federal tax on each grenade launcher purchase.

And, yes people do own grenade launchers and artillery in America, including Wisconsin.

badger (Tue Nov 25 14:12:32 2008)

Post a Reply

Print this Article

Email Article to a Friend