********* From: Randy May <rmayat_private> To: "'declanat_private'" <declanat_private> Subject: RE: Will campaign finance laws transform think tanks into media o rgs? Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 17:01:30 -0400 Declan- On the subject of campaign finance reform, here's a column I wrote about a month ago about why the McCain-Feingold style proposals stifle free speech. Relative to Andrew's point, I argued that the speech of independent groups (including think tanks)is no less important than the speech of the New York Times or Washington Post editorial writers who advocate speech bans for others. And calling the others "special interests" does not make their speech (necessarily) any less valuable than that of the organized press that prefers to think of itself as representing the "public interest". The real public interest, of course, is just having more, rather than less, unfettetted speech. Cheers, Randy http://www.pff.org/RandysPOVsinLegalTimes/MaysPOV080801.htm Randolph J. May Senior Fellow and Director of Communications Policy Studies The Progress & Freedom Foundation 1301 K Street, NW Suite 550 East Washington, DC 20005 Tel. 202-289-8928 Fax 202-289-6079 e-mail rmayat_private ********* Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 13:47:45 -0700 From: lizard <lizardat_private> To: declanat_private CC: politechat_private Subject: Re: FC: Will campaign finance laws transform think tanks into mediaorgs? Declan McCullagh wrote: > > ******** > > From: "Andrew J. Downey" <ajdowneyat_private> > To: "'declanat_private'" <declanat_private> > Subject: another thought: Who is a journalist? > Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 10:50:33 -0400 > > Declan, > > seeing you this morning reminded me of another thought I had re: the > question of who is/what constitutes a journalist. > > If McCain-style campaign finance "reform" laws are passed, you'll probably > see a lot of the money going towards funding "research foundations" be > redirected to fund "news organizations" as these laws exempt news. > > I think it goes without saying that this will untimately harm the truly > professional journalist's reputation, as news is _supposed_ to be unbiased > whereas "policy think tanks" generally are expected to espouse a specific > viewpoint. Hrm. This might be the point. After this latest round of campaign finance 'reform' fails to reform anything, someone will point to this loophole and decree that the problem is erstaz 'news' organizations. Thus, the 'solution' is to create a caste of 'licensed' reporters, editors, etc who are considered 'legitimate' -- then go after all the 'unlicensed' journalists out there. (Like Matt Drudge, or anyone with a web page and an axe to grind.) A poster on f-c was recently aghast at the suggestion that Democratic supporters of finance reform might have (horrors) ulterior motives -- that they weren't acting solely on the basis of altruism and true patriotism. (Only REPUBLICANS are corrupt pawns of the Corporate Overlords, doncha know) (The mental acuity of this individual can be ascertained by noting he though Nader could have both won and ruled effectively if only he wasn't a victim of the Evil Corportations). As for me, I know that no one in politics does anything unless it's with an eye to increasing their personal power, but I admit I had not figured out the angle the pro-reform Congresscritters were shooting from. Now I know. ********* From: Tim Hollebeek <thollebeekat_private> To: "'declanat_private'" <declanat_private>, "'ajdowneyat_private'" <ajdowneyat_private> Subject: RE: Will campaign finance laws transform think tanks into media o rgs? Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 16:49:10 -0400 > I think it goes without saying that this will untimately harm > the truly > professional journalist's reputation, as news is _supposed_ > to be unbiased > whereas "policy think tanks" generally are expected to > espouse a specific > viewpoint. The two or three people who consider themselves "truly professional" journalists in the world will shed a few tears, then move on. The "independent, unbiased journalist" is a myth; get over it. Professional journalists attempt to minimize illegitimate bias, they don't eliminate bias. Media orgs that care will reject such funding since it is in there best interest to avoid even the appearance of illegitimate bias; perhaps people like Rush Limbaugh may end up with more RNC money. Do we care? I think not. I mean, come on. Politech leans well left of center. And to me, that's fine. -Tim ********* From: terry.sat_private To: declanat_private Cc: ajdowneyat_private Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 17:17:49 -0400 Subject: Re: FC: Will campaign finance laws transform think tanks into media orgs? On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 16:23:10 -0400 Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> writes: > > ******** > > From: "Andrew J. Downey" <ajdowneyat_private> > question of who is/what constitutes a journalist. > > If McCain-style campaign finance "reform" laws are passed, you'll probably > see a lot of the money going towards funding "research foundations" > be redirected to fund "news organizations" as these laws exempt news. This is already an issue of sorts, highlighted by the move years ago to Presidential debates hosted by the League of Women Voters to debates sponsored by a TV network trade group of sorts concocted to allow networks to call shows they produced to be "bona fide news" coverage of third party activities. One can review the FCC regulations on personal attack doctrine exemption (in 47 CFR 73) to see one side of why that was done, and the Federal Election Commission law from Congress which two Presidential elections ago resulted in Supreme Court accelerated review, to see just how problematic such manipulations of law and regulation already are. When the lawfully qualified Reform and Natural Law candidates sued, and the Libertarian qualified for participation in televised debates didn't bother after the networks proved their intent by having his predecessor 3 elections ago arrested for showing up at the debate site, the Supreme Court endorsed an incumbent preservation dirty trick by Congress (SCOTUS cited a jurisdictional issue whereby it might find the law called for qualified candidates to appear, but couldn't rule until after statutory remedies expired in January on matters prior to a November election, at which point the issue would be moot). It's really not in dispute whether campaign laws do have such impacts to distort the entire election process; they do. The real questions are really over which distortions are intended to subvert and bias the process, versus exist as innocent consequences of efforts to have less biased elections, and secondly what options exist for a better system (more ethically balanced or more biased in one's favor, depending on point of view defining "better system"). Terry ********* From: "Ben" <bmwat_private> To: <declanat_private> Subject: Re: Will campaign finance laws transform think tanks into media orgs? Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 18:57:45 -0400 Campaign finance 'laws' are called reform because they reaffirm standards that've been law since the days of our founding fathers. I know a lot of people get off on likening it to new regulatory action from an abusive government, but the fact of the matter is that corporations were always been banned from donating to (bribing) politicians, and unions were restricted from the same practice in the 40's. It was nothing less than criminal activity that brought about the loophole of 'non-federal' accounts that led to the avalanche of bribery and extortion that infects the government today. And campaign finance reform does nothing more than weaken the influence of money on politicians, that has allowed peoples' voices to be ignored over the will of the biggest donors. Andrew's theory is probably correct, and it goes to show how badly the parties involved crave a dominative influence over what is supposed to be a government by the people and for the people. Why would they go to such extents to preserve this system if their money weren't buying something? People need to put aside their petty differences over the nature of the problem; hate the government and love big business, hate big business and love the government, or hate'em both like I do. The fact remains that one hand washes the other. Hate it, love it; the government shells out billions of taxpayer dollars to phony 'research' programs created as a front, by businesses who apparently don't make enough money through the normal channels. Just one example of corporate welfare. Love it, hate it; big business trades lives for pharmaceutical profits, forces the public's taxes to go towards bringing their factories in line with environmental regulations, uses 3rd-world slave labor to make it's products, and makes the government more powerful with every dollar-laced palm that slips through. Campaign finance reform is something I always thought would draw support from all sides; we're talking about the difference between fascism and aristocracy, compared to freedom and equality. The private sector loves the priviledged treatment; capitol hill loves the income. Campaign finance reform is a rare opportunity to bitch slap both for crossing the line, and forgetting that they exist to serve the will of the people. ********* From: "Thomas Leavitt" <thomasleavittat_private> To: declanat_private Subject: Re: FC: Will campaign finance laws transform think tanks into media orgs? Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 16:08:50 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F31anc9apUZq3dUO0a4000036efat_private> Tell Fox News that "news is _supposed_ to be unbiased". Or William Randolph Hearst, for that matter... I think most people are capable of recognizing when an agenda is being pushed. Bad news reporting (and there is a ton of it out there) has never particularly harmed quality journalists - do you think of 60 Minutes and Mike Wallace in the same breath as Entertainment Tonight or your local bird cage liner? I don't. Shit flows downhill. Everyone knows that even if campaign finance reform passes, it will, at best, slow down the gravy train... and I think even John McCain or Russ Feingold has said, "We'll be back here in another ten to twenty years, no doubt." Thomas ********* ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Sep 07 2001 - 09:22:21 PDT