goombah99 writes "The Washington Post is criticizing a little-noticed bill wending it's way through congress that would allow unlimited and unreported campaign contributions by corporations and individuals as long as it was confined to internet advertising and publicity buys. While internet spending was only $14 million last year it is growing at a rate of 30 fold over four years poising it to overtake conventional media spending." Campaign Financing Cyber Loophole Log in/Create an Account | Top | 273 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 273 comments 0: 264 comments 1: 225 comments 2: 153 comments 3: 38 comments 4: 25 comments 5: 16 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Nooooo...... (Score:5, Insightful) by dascandy (869781) <dascandy@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 12, @04:05AM (#13771702) Now all of Europe's going to be completely overwhelmed with advertisements for political parties they cannot even vote for. [ Reply to ThisRe:Nooooo...... by Yvanhoe (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @04:23AMYou can't do that in the US either... by dascandy (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @05:08AMRe:You can't do that in the US either... by utnow (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @05:19AMnone of the above by way2trivial (Score:3) Wednesday October 12, @07:34AMRe:You can't do that in the US either... by Mattcelt (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @07:55AMRe:You can't do that in the US either... by BridgeBum (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @09:40AMRe:You can't do that in the US either... by N1XIM (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @10:24AMRe:You can't do that in the US either... by meringuoid (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @06:41AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Nooooo...... by lord sibn (Score:3) Wednesday October 12, @05:14AMRe:Nooooo...... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @07:12AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Nooooo...... by SQL Error (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @08:31AM Re:Nooooo...... (Score:5, Informative) by ScentCone (795499) on Wednesday October 12, @08:33AM (#13772303) Now all of Europe's going to be completely overwhelmed with advertisements for political parties they cannot even vote for.Actually, if you think the porn industry is a driver for technological advances, that's nothing compared to campaigning, at least when it comes to demo/geo-graphics. Have you bumped into any porn/dating-system ads that appear to pretty effectively map your ip address to your locality ("Find someone in Smallville to sleep with tonight!")? I believe that political campaigns will use everything at their disposal to make sure that their banners are being displayed where (and to whom) they think it will make the most sense.Those gratuitous "Do you think John Kerry was lying?" or "Do you trust George Bush?" banners as seen on Drudge or elsewhere have nothing to do with real campaigns, and are entirely bait to get people to visit some cheesy "survey" site that attempts to purchase your soul for permission-based adware installs and other shenanigans. They just know that "Is global warming real? Vote!" is a tease that many people cannot resist.Yes, I know that most AOL users will appear to be coming from Virginia, but most broadband users are reasonably easy to pin down in terms of state. Certainly it's pretty easy to tell when a visitor is from Europe, and to just rotate in an ad for a Vespa or something. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Nooooo...... by frn123 (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @10:45AMRe:Nooooo...... by ScentCone (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @11:05AMRe:Nooooo...... by chgros (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @01:50PMRe:Nooooo...... by stinerman (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @02:14PMRe:Nooooo...... by mfrank (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @03:05PM Fold (Score:1) by Odin_Tiger (585113) on Wednesday October 12, @04:11AM (#13771712) 30 -fold-? No way. [ Reply to ThisRe:Fold by 1u3hr (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @07:32AMobligatory simpsons reference by GimmeFuel (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @01:24PMRe:Fold by Odin_Tiger (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @06:30AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Fold by Mr. Slippery (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @10:17AMRe:Fold by dual_boot_brain (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @12:58PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Maybe not (Score:5, Interesting) by Kawahee (901497) on Wednesday October 12, @04:13AM (#13771717) (http://ensim.bkshosting.com/~admin83/lanlocked/) I don't think that we're going to find billions dumped into internet advertising, why? Because internet campaigning isn't going to be growing at 30 fold forever.Campaign 1: $.5 million invested onlineCampaign 2: $15 million invested online.That's 30 fold (and 14.5 million).Campaign 1: $100 million invested, Campaign 2: $120 million invested.That's 1.2 fold (and 20 million).Nobody is going to target the internet with large amounts of money when it's more feasible to target the general public using television/newspaper ads. Nobody is going to say, "Hey! Look! I can donate $100 million in internet advertising" *when the money can be better utilitised somewhere else*. [ Reply to ThisRe:Maybe not by aussie_a (Score:3) Wednesday October 12, @04:25AMRe:Maybe not by prattle (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @06:12AM Re:Maybe not (Score:5, Insightful) by rtb61 (674572) on Wednesday October 12, @07:21AM (#13772112) Just because the the money is claimed for internet advertising does not mean it is actually spent there. Just think of sites owned by the players and charging enourmous amounts for advertising space i.e. payoffs as internet advertising profits. Basically a less than unfront politician is enabling a new method of illicit campaign financing to get passed what is already a pretty shaky set of legislation. They must have thought the current legislation was just taking too much effort to work around and to be honest the current set arn't the brightest and managed to stuff up every now and then, so there after a much easier system of funding (the republican mantra, eliminate that nightmare of bureaucratic red tape with an aim to maximising productivity and profits togethor with full employment for family members and friends). [ Reply to This | ParentCampaign SEO by yintercept (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @03:23PMRe:Maybe not by kenji_watanabe (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @12:46PMYou're missing the point. money as speech by goombah99 (Score:2) Thursday October 13, @12:19AM Does my liberalism require that I reject this? (Score:4, Insightful) by ReformedExCon (897248) <reformed.excon@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 12, @04:16AM (#13771724) I am about as liberal as you can get. I think that the role of the government should be expanded such that it provides a very large safety net for the disadvantaged, and I think that many services that we now pay for ought to be subsidized such that those services (medical, roads, etc) are free/affordable for at least the most disadvantaged and ideally for the whole citizenry.But I am absolutely against recent "liberal" attempts to stifle Free Speech by restricting campaign contributions. I think it is paramount to a repeal of the First Amendment to say that you cannot use your money in the way that you see fit. If a person wishes to give speeches on the corner in support of his candidate, it is wrong to take away his right to do so. If a person uses his own money to buy a soap box and megaphone to do it more effectively, it is wrong to take away his right to spend that money. If a person gives money to his candidate in order that the candidate can furnish other supporters with soap boxes and megaphones, is it right to take that right away? Where do we draw the line? Why do we draw the line?It is not anyone's business but the IRS how I spend my money, in my opinion. If I want to blow a million dollars on TV ads for my favored candidate, the government ought not have the right to stop me anymore than they have the right to stop me from buying lollipops for the sick kids in the hospital.How the "liberals" got caught up in this illiberal crusade is beyond me. It smacks more of anti-Republicanism than anything else. By restricting the campaign contributions of the rich, they effectively limit the amount the Republicans can take in from their supporters. That that crackpot McCain and the worthless Feingold were the people bringing the originally passing bill to the floor is no big surprise, but that we have widespread support of the erosion of our most cherished First Amendment rights among the people sworn to protect and defend our Constitution is abominable.Good for this current bill. Let's bring back Free Speech to the citizenry. [ Reply to ThisRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by promatrax161 (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @04:27AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by ReformedExCon (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @04:33AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by promatrax161 (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @04:45AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by deathy_epl+ccs (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @05:00AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by Mo Bedda (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @09:18AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by pintomp3 (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @04:29AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by ScentCone (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @08:39AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by Pollardito (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @09:52AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by ScentCone (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @09:59AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by dptalia (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @11:08AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by stinerman (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @12:08PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by stinerman (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @12:01PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by ScentCone (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @12:13PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by stinerman (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @01:20PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by ScentCone (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @01:41PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by stinerman (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @02:10PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by ScentCone (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @02:50PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by stinerman (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @03:49PM Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? (Score:5, Insightful) by gowen (141411) <slashdot@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk> on Wednesday October 12, @04:31AM (#13771763) (Last Journal: Thursday October 31, @03:07PM) Well, I think there are two distinct things here:i) unlimited spendingii) undisclosed spendingLike you, I'm torn on the former. There's a personal liberty issue, but the consequences of unlimited spending are worse, IMHO. Unlimited spending by the two bug parties acts as an effective barrier to entry to third parties. They can't draw much corporate funding until they have influence, and grass roots funding simply can't compete to obtain that influence. Personally, I'd bar all corporate contributions and allow unlimited personal contributions, from anyone eligible to vote. Control of Government should be left to citizens who have that right... it's what the Founding Fathers wanted.ii) Undisclosed political contributions (above a very low level) are absolutely inexcusable. Accountability, accountability, accountability. The electorate has the right to know who is financing a candidate. It's a vital piece of information in the democratic process. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by SQL Error (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @04:36AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by alexhs (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @06:01AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by SQL Error (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @08:57AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by dajak (Score:3) Wednesday October 12, @10:00AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by bluGill (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @11:47AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by dajak (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @12:52PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by alexhs (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @12:01PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by ScentCone (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @08:42AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by jmj_sd (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @09:30AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by ScentCone (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @09:57AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by dajak (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @10:33AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by ScentCone (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @10:41AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by dajak (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @05:28PM Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? (Score:4, Insightful) by ConceptJunkie (24823) on Wednesday October 12, @09:50AM (#13772763) (http://www.zycha.com/ | Last Journal: Monday August 25, @11:22PM) Unlimited spending by the two bug parties acts as an effective barrier to entry to third parties.I'm sick of bug parties, I think we need scientists to create sterile male politicians with glow-in-the-dark gonads to try to wipe them out.We need some new parties... ones that represent someone other than money and status quo (i.e., the big two) or crackpots (i.e., most of the rest). [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by ichigo 2.0 (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @12:35PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by myth24601 (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @11:41AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by ortholattice (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @11:57AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by myth24601 (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @05:23PMDisclosure means red tape means "chilling". by Ungrounded Lightning (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @01:25PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by mike_the_kid (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @05:46PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by Duhavid (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @10:38PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by multimed (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @12:07PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by Duhavid (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @10:34PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.In a way, yes.. by Tracer_Bullet82 (Score:3) Wednesday October 12, @04:38AMRe:In a way, yes.. by justasecond (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @01:02PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by unitron (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @04:38AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by ReformedExCon (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @04:44AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? (Score:5, Insightful) by AthenianGadfly (798721) on Wednesday October 12, @04:39AM (#13771784) In theory, I think you make a good point. However, there are a couple of things that you don't take into consideration. For example, do we really want our elections to be for sale to the highest bidder (more so than they already are, that is)? An unlimited amount of money poured into a campaign can effectively buy a certain outcome, given how susceptible the general population is to advertising. Also, consider the nature of most of the "speech" that results from campaign contributions. Have you ever seen a political television advertisement that added anything worthwhile to the discussion - or indeed do anything that wasn't mainly posturing and hand-waving?I certainly think that individuals should have the right to say what they want about politics (just like anything else), and spend their own money in the process. However, I would draw the line when it comes to giving other people enough money for them to repeat their mantra loudly enough and often enough that it drowns out the dissenting voices. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by Azghoul (Score:3) Wednesday October 12, @07:55AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by Hrodvitnir (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @09:51AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by xappax (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @12:33PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by PsiPsiStar (Score:3) Wednesday October 12, @08:27AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by glesga_kiss (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @08:42AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by PsiPsiStar (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @09:54AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by oni (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @09:16AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by jafac (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @10:42AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by mfrank (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @04:18PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by jafac (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @09:30PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by dptalia (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @11:17AMDoes Democracy Just Suck? by Shihar (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @01:06PMThey're already for sale. by Ungrounded Lightning (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @01:36PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by xiphoris (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @04:45AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by QuantumRiff (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @04:45AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by SQL Error (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @04:51AMRe:not really by SQL Error (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @08:29AMRight != Ability by bobbuck (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @10:36AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? (Score:5, Insightful) by ScentCone (795499) on Wednesday October 12, @09:00AM (#13772447) You forgot one little detail about the freedom of speech, that I think is rather important. You should have the right to protest when you want to. that is speaking.. You should not be sent to a "free speech zone" in a razor wire cage a mile from the event you are protesting.. National Security my ass!So, if I really can't stand something that Hillary Clinton is sqawking about, can I just get up on the stage next to her and protest? No? How about 10 feet from her? Maybe 20 feet? No? But all I want to do is wave around a giant puppet head of her with horns on it and beat my loud drums! It's freedom of speech, and I demand that my puppet head be visible next to her during while she's talking, since it's my freedom of speech, too.And if I can't have that, I demand the ability to stand in the public street and block traffic. I don't care about people who are trying to drive to where Hillary is going to be, it's my puppet display that should trump all other forms of expression, even if an ambulance carrying your heart-attack-having grandmother is stopped because of me.What's that? Maybe there should be a permitting process for the use of public space so that Hillary and her supporters can apply for and get use of it for her rantings, and I can use if for my rantings too, when it's my turn? Oh wait - we already have that system, and it works just fine. That doesn't seem to influence the people that want to smash the windows of a Starbucks store to somehow retaliate against The Man for having a permitting process, but there's no satisfying some freedom-minded people, I suppose (unless they get to smash something owned by millions of people's 401k investments). [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by Mr. Slippery (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @05:15PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Liberal by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @04:48AMRe:Liberal by ReformedExCon (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @04:54AMRe:Liberal by Rocketship Underpant (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @05:46AMRe:Liberal by ReformedExCon (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @06:00AMRe:Liberal by stinerman (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @12:48PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Liberal by zootm (Score:3) Wednesday October 12, @07:41AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? (Score:5, Insightful) by znu (31198) <znu@acedsl.com> on Wednesday October 12, @05:10AM (#13771859) I think to understand the argument against unlimited campaign contributions, you have to go past the letter of the First Amendment and look at its purpose. Why is it important, from the perspective of society, that we have a right to free speech?I would argue that it's important because it's essential for democracy. It allows ideas to be introduced and challenged, accepted or rejected, on a level playing field. When you allow unlimited spending on things like political advertising, the playing field is no longer level. It's like having a debate between two sides, where both sides show up with the largest PA systems they can afford and try to drown each other out.Does it really serve freedom in the larger sense to allow people to act in ways that subvert an essential component of liberal democracy? We don't allow people to tamper with voting machines -- we should not allow them to distort the public discourse either. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? (Score:5, Insightful) by Syberghost (10557) <syberghost&eiv,com> on Wednesday October 12, @06:52AM (#13772052) (http://www.livejournal.com/users/syberghost/) Does it really serve freedom in the larger sense to allow people to act in ways that subvert an essential component of liberal democracy? We don't allow people to tamper with voting machines -- we should not allow them to distort the public discourse either.Who decides which ideas and expressions contribute to the public discourse, and which distort it? [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by xSauronx (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @07:19AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by d34thm0nk3y (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @03:16PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by demigod (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @07:51AM Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? (Score:5, Insightful) by Dannon (142147) <dannon AT binomial DOT dhs DOT org> on Wednesday October 12, @08:08AM (#13772211) (http://binomial.dhs.org/~dannon | Last Journal: Thursday February 05, @09:11PM) I suggest that the cure to "distorted" public discourse is more political speech, not less.These campaign finance laws are all about limiting the quantity of speech, and your complaint is with the content of it. The people you want to thwart are still going to find ways of getting their message across. They've got the money to buy the lawyers to find the loophoes. And, in the mean time, if way of outside-the-establishment types want to put in our own two bits, we have to prove that we weren't contributing to a party. Heck, I don't even like the two-party system we've got, but if I buy some radio air-time to say so, I've "contributed" to a political party, by these rules! It's ridiculous!And if we start getting into laws that regulate the content, you can look for even more pro-establishment favoratism.When it comes to government corruption, more government is not the solution. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by oni (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @09:46AM Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? (Score:5, Insightful) by RexRhino (769423) on Wednesday October 12, @09:03AM (#13772461) But, by definition, the "level playing field" as you call it will be decided and enforced by the political elite. So essentially, you are putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.Have you ever looked at the disasterous effect campaign finance reform has had on small political parties in the U.S.? It has nearly destroyed them. Small political parties depend on few people giving larger donations. Large political parties depend on more people giving smaller donations. Why do you think the two major parties, and all the mainstream politicians are clammering for campaign finance reform, and the small parties hate it? Because it eliminates anybody but the Republicans and Democrats from the game.One thing that is hard for most people (like you) to understand nowadays, since the most prevalent religion is state-worship... that the government is not omnipotent and benevolent. If the government says "We are going to regulate campaign finance to level the playing field", that doesn't mean that the government intends to level the playing field, nor that the government is capable of that if it wanted to. What "campaign finance reform" is, is the absolute control over all forms of political speech by the political elite. THAT is what people like you support, even if you don't want to admit it. [ Reply to This | ParentMOD PARENT UP! by bobbuck (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @09:58AMPerhaps the problem should be nailed at source by TiredOfCrap (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @12:35PMRe:Perhaps the problem should be nailed at source by RexRhino (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @01:16PM Wrong idea about what it's free FROM (Score:5, Insightful) by ScentCone (795499) on Wednesday October 12, @09:10AM (#13772497) I would argue that it's important because it's essential for democracy. It allows ideas to be introduced and challenged, accepted or rejected, on a level playing field."Freedom of speech" doesn't mean you're free from me speaking louder than you because I'm persuasive enough to get get several other people to join me (pool funds, whatever). The constitution's guarantee of free speech refers to your freedom from interference by the government. That's why the campaign finance laws limiting speech are such a bad idea - they involve the government judging when and how you can express your opinion about something... something that's exactly contrary to the founder's strong words on the subject.Does it really serve freedom in the larger sense to allow people to act in ways that subvert an essential component of liberal democracy?How does two people getting together to say something against what you have to say equal subversion? It's exactly the point - it's free association and speech, exactly as guaranteed under the constitution. If you can't manage to get enough people to see your point, and thus attract the same communications horsepower as the people you oppose, then you need to re-examine the merits of your position. Unpopular, minority opinions do get through the larger noise when they are compelling enough. See voting rights and similar issues as examples. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Wrong idea about what it's free FROM by Shajenko42 (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @09:32AMRe:Wrong idea about what it's free FROM by greg_barton (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @10:07AMRe:Wrong idea about what it's free FROM by ScentCone (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @10:22AMRe:Wrong idea about what it's free FROM by Joseph Hardin (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @10:31AMRe:Wrong idea about what it's free FROM by xappax (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @01:56PMRe:Wrong idea about what it's free FROM by znu (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @12:09PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by Keichann (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @05:17AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by lord sibn (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @05:17AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by solattam (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @05:21AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by surprise_audit (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @05:42AMmakes it easy to buy election by bxbaser (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @05:48AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by strider44 (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @06:08AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by nicklott (Score:3) Wednesday October 12, @06:18AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by Shajenko42 (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @08:49AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by PsiPsiStar (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @10:18AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by Guuge (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @10:39AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by Scarblac (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @12:39PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by Mutatis Mutandis (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @06:26AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by SinaSa (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @06:34AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by Darkman, Walkin Dude (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @06:35AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by Antiocheian (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @06:48AMRe:Free Speech Zone by Concerned Onlooker (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @07:14AMRe:Free Speech Zone by Concerned Onlooker (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @10:47PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by 1u3hr (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @07:44AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by sco08y (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @08:25AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by Wierd Willy (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @08:49AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by nelsonal (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @09:03AMWhat is the liberal case that money is speech? by brokeninside (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @09:15AMRe:What is the liberal case that money is speech? by JhohannaVH (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @05:29PMIf you're going to do research ... by brokeninside (Score:1) Thursday October 13, @12:08AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by LihTox (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @10:22AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by Seanasy (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @10:31AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by Seanasy (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @10:41AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by Mr. Slippery (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @10:32AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by jafac (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @10:35AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by Xtravar (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @11:57AMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by ivan256 (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @12:23PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by AuMatar (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @12:44PMRe:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by Arandir (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @02:36PMConsider the leverage available by ankhank (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @03:44PMI have seen it *all*!!! :D by JhohannaVH (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @05:41PMRe:You've got a lot to learn by symbolic (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @09:47PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this? by Jonathan the Nerd (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @11:55AM12 replies beneath your current threshold. you were waiting, here it comes (Score:2, Funny) by hobotron (891379) on Wednesday October 12, @04:17AM (#13771725) BU$H G1V3S J00 UP 2 3 EXTR4 1NCH3S CL1CK H3R3 2 V0T3 [ Reply to ThisRe:you were waiting, here it comes by pintomp3 (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @04:31AM Crikey (Score:5, Funny) by gowen (141411) <slashdot@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk> on Wednesday October 12, @04:18AM (#13771729) (Last Journal: Thursday October 31, @03:07PM) ... if America keeps going along these lines, it won't be long before they elect a completely incompetent President, whose only qualifications are high level connections and the ability to outspend his opponent due to massive corporate contributions.I don't look forward toward that day, let me tell you. [ Reply to ThisRe:Crikey by pintomp3 (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @04:34AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Crikey by fr3nch_com (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @05:40PMRe:Crikey by symbolic (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @10:05PM Clumsy way to protect blogs? (Score:4, Insightful) by Holmwood (899130) on Wednesday October 12, @04:20AM (#13771736) It's starting to look as though McCain-Feingold will end up hurting larger blogs, as they risk being counted as contributions during an election cycle. Manolo's Shoe Blog is probably pretty safe, but Daily Kos and Instapundit aren't. I'd bet both their bandwidth bills violate the cap, and they both tend to back specific candidates.So, this law is likely simply a clumsy way to protect blogs. [ Reply to ThisMore likely a way to protect trolls & astrotur by MarkusQ (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @08:58AM I Wholeheartedly Support This Bill (Score:2, Funny) by SQL Error (16383) on Wednesday October 12, @04:29AM (#13771755) And that has nothing to do with the fact that I run 200 blogs. [ Reply to This Internet Power Struggle Reaching Climax (Score:1) by VON-MAN (621853) on Wednesday October 12, @04:34AM (#13771769) Well, if that isn't funny. I guess everything is connected.Internet Power Struggle Reaching Climax:http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/ 11/1841205&tid=95&tid=219 [slashdot.org] [ Reply to This better the Internet than TV (Score:4, Interesting) by bersl2 (689221) on Wednesday October 12, @04:46AM (#13771808) (Last Journal: Monday October 03, @01:08AM) 1. I can block it more easily.2. Fewer stupid people will passively receive ads than with TV, per ad dollar spent. It's better that they waste their money online.3. Dollars spent on ad space will be far more distributed and to substantially less rich people, effectively redistributing income. At least, the money is much less likely to end up in the pocketbooks of Big Media. Yay, capitalism and (partial) socioeconomic justice at the same time!Why, again, would this not be an improvement? [ Reply to ThisRe:better the Internet than TV by jesuscash (Score:1) Wednesday October 12, @05:26AMRe:better the Internet than TV by zootm (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @08:07AM Doesn't matter (Score:2, Informative) by Jekler (626699) on Wednesday October 12, @04:49AM (#13771815) It's a waste of money to advertise to the public. It's not like the public gets to vote, as evidenced by the 2000 election. And a 30 fold increase over four years? That's not so astounding. Virtually everything which has an initial state and a larger end state, grows 30 fold over some arbitrary period of time. I mean it would be one thing if you could say it would grow 30 fold indefinitely. The number of MP3s I bought grew 30 fold over the last year. Once I took a sip of orange mountain dew, I liked it, so my spending on it grew 30 fold (I bought a whole can). My spending on duck grew 30 fold over the last 2 weeks. (2 weeks ago I spent $10 on duck at a chinese restaurant, just last night I spent $300 on duck for a dinner). Compared to last year, the number of box office films I've watched quadrupled! It's amazing how long we can go on with phenomenal sounding statistics. [ Reply to ThisRe:The 2000 election? by Jim_Callahan (Score:3) Wednesday October 12, @05:45AMStolen 2000 vote by Just Some Guy (Score:2) Wednesday October 12, @12:21PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. C'mon, really?