Election Dysfunction

The Sunday Washington Post headline said it all. Echoing a theme that is finally being picked up by print and broadcast media that for too long has neglected the dramatic problems with this country's systems for casting and counting votes, the newspaper's front page announced: "Major Problems At Polls Feared: Some Officials Say Voting Law Changes And New Technology Will Cause Trouble."

Following a disastrous election day in Maryland that was defined by human blunders, technical glitches, long lines and long delays in vote counting so severe that some contests remain unresolved almost a week after the balloting, the Post declared that, "An overhaul in how states and localities record votes and administer elections since the Florida recount battle six years ago has created conditions that could trigger a repeat -- this time on a national scale -- of last week's Election Day debacle in the Maryland suburbs, election experts said."

No fooling!

Some of us have been writing and talking about this country's almost fully dysfunctional electoral systems for the better part of a decade. And the one thing that every serious observer of the electoral meltdown recognizes is that the people who have managed the mess ought not to be trusted to clean it up.

That's the message that underpins the candidacy of John Bonifaz for the Democratic nomination for Massachusetts Secretary of State.

Bonifaz, the founder of the National Voting Rights Institute, is one of a number of activists and advocates who are running in races for secretary of state positions around the country this year. They have recognized that these posts, which in most states are responsible for conducting elections, can no longer be trusted to Republican partisans -- such as Florida's Katherine Harris and Ohio's Ken Blackwell -- or Democratic hacks. They have to be occupied by champions of democracy who believe that protecting and the promoting the right to vote must be the central function of local and state election officials.

Some of these champions have already secured secretary of state nominations, including Minnesota Democrat Mark Ritchie and California Democrat Debra Bowen. But in Massachusetts, where the primary is Tuesday, Bonifaz faces a tough challenge. He must overcome an entrenched incumbent, William Galvin, who at one point was considered a serious contender for governor but dropped back to seek reelection as secretary of state.

That decision by Galvin made Bonifaz's job much harder. But he has persevered with a primary campaign that has spoken well and wisely of the need to fix our broken election systems. His small "d" democratic commitment has earned Bonifaz enthusiastic endorsements from newspapers such as the Boston Phoenix, one of the nation's premier alternative weeklies, and the New Bedford Standard-Times, which declared last week that, "Mr. Galvin has not used his office enough to push through voting reforms that make Massachusetts a shining example and a leader in reviving democracy at the local level. Mr. Bonifaz will be that champion for the voter."

Bonifaz has also won the backing of national figures who have been active on behalf of voting rights, including U.S. Representatives John Conyers, D-Michigan, and Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Illinois., along with the support of the state's many Progressive Democrats of America chapters.

What appeals about Bonifaz is the seriousness of his uphill campaign, a seriousness that is highlighted by the candidate's commitment to a Voters' Bill of Rights that ought to be the platform on which progressives stand as they address this country's democracy shortfall.

Bonifaz's Voters Bill of Rights promises to:

1. Count every vote

One hundred and eight democratic nations in the world have explicit language guaranteeing the right to vote in their constitutions, and the United States -- along with only ten other such nations -- does not. As a result, the way we administer elections in this country changes from state to state, from county to county, from locality to locality. The Secretary of the Commonwealth must fight for a constitutional amendment that affirmatively guarantees the right to vote in the US Constitution.

***

John Nichols is the author of Jews for Buchanan (The New Press), an account of the Florida recount fight following the 2000 presidential election, and numerous articles on America's dysfunctional electoral systems.

Comments (49)

1. as long as the plan includes actually fixing our broken elections... I'm game

   Posted by Will C. at 09/18/2006 @ 11:49pm

2. "as long as the plan includes actually fixing our broken elections... I'm game"

   Sure you are..right up to but not including the point where conservatives win the election, then obviously there must have been fraud...

   Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2006 @ 12:15am

3. Make sure the voters are indeed eligible...ie, felons, democratic grave yards, illegals aliens...

   Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2006 @ 12:16am

4. Sure you are..right up to but not including the point where conservatives win the election, then obviously there must have been fraud...

   Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/19/2006 @ 12:15am

   if we fix the problem then our elections will be verifiable kook.

   So I don't know where your kooky suggestion has any relevance to this discussion

   Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 12:20am

5. Make sure the voters are indeed eligible...ie, felons, democratic grave yards, illegals aliens...

   Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/19/2006 @ 12:16am

   that's kooky

   Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 12:21am

6. Make sure the voters are indeed eligible...ie, felons, democratic grave yards, illegals aliens...

   I think this could actually be a problem for election-day registration. In states where ex-felons can't vote, the state would have to have a list of ex-felons to check off the registration rolls that day, and I don't see how that can really be done in a manner that even approaches being efficient or effective.

   One hundred and eight democratic nations in the world have explicit language guaranteeing the right to vote in their constitutions, and the United States -- along with only ten other such nations -- does not. As a result, the way we administer elections in this country changes from state to state, from county to county, from locality to locality. The Secretary of the Commonwealth must fight for a constitutional amendment that affirmatively guarantees the right to vote in the US Constitution.

   What exactly would this entail? Would it deny states the ability to say that ex-felons, for example, couldn't vote? Would it specify ways in which districts should be set up? What exactly would this amendment do that the 19th Amendment doesn't?

   Posted by Thrawn at 09/19/2006 @ 12:56am

7. "We also need to enact mandatory limits on campaign spending. In 1976, the Supreme Court wrongly struck down mandatory campaign spending limits for congressional elections. Massachusetts should help lead the way with campaign spending limits for our elections. "

   Right or wrong...any chance the JOHN ROBERTS USSC isn't going to strike THOSE down too?

   Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 07:08am

8. Also, notice Mr Nichols taking writing advice from Mr Corn...i.e. shameless book plugs....hehe

   "John Nichols is the author of Jews for Buchanan (The New Press), an account of the Florida recount fight following the 2000 presidential election, and numerous articles on America's dysfunctional electoral systems."

   Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 08:43am

9. OOps posted this on another thread but meant to post it here as it the most resent:

   THRAWN

   I couldn't respond per Nichols closed the thread on the older blog, but your last response was once again disingenuous as you changed the argument to one I hadn't posed i.e.:

   Apart from just disagreeing with logic you'll need more corroboration that 1+1 does NOT= 2.

   So what you're saying is...logic isn't a basis for challenging something? Are you joking? If you say "well, according to source X, Y is the case," I could legitimately challenge that by saying "but Y doesn't make any sense, for A, B and C reasons."

   Posted by THRAWN 09/18/2006 @ 8:32pm

   Similarly I stated that prices for oil came down in Nov/2004 and you continued to respond with the prices in the 3rd quarter-- I even challenged you to look it up but you didn't per you'd lose the argument. You argue not to clarify but to obscure. Example:

   YOUR ARGUMENT BASED ARTICLES:

   Did Saudis assure Bush on oil prices? Report says prince pledged re-election support President Bush with Saudi Arabian ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan at the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas, Aug. 27, 2002. Eric Draper / Reuters file Related Stories By John W. Schoen Senior Producer MSNBC Updated: 4:58 p.m. CT April 19, 2004

   The White House Monday declined to comment on a report in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward that a Saudi Arabian ambassador had promised the Bush administration that it would lower oil prices to help boost the U.S. economy in time for the November presidential election.

   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

   Oil prices blight US growth hopes

   Ashley Seager Saturday October 30, 2004 The Guardian

   The American economy has failed to give George Bush a pre-election boost as figures out yesterday showed slower than expected growth in the third quarter of the year.

   Separate data showed consumer confidence wilting under the effect of high oil prices, which have pushed the price of petrol at the pumps above the $2 a gallon level.

   $$$$$$$$$$$$

   ARTICLES WITH SIMPLE GOOGLE SUBSTANTIATING MY ARGUMENT:

   http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1299/3/

   Faced with continuing high prices, OPEC was in a weak position at its September 15 meeting. With spare capacity reduced to about one mbd in Saudi Arabia, OPEC sought to remedy high prices by announcing an increase in its production ceiling from 26 to 27 mbd effective November 1. This was more a signal than an actual change because current production from the OPEC-10 was already known to be 28 mbd.

   Despite interest by several members, a decision was postponed on whether to raise the price band, which by this point had become irrelevant. Naimi clearly opposed the raise, saying it should only be raised if there was a structural change in the market. Saudi Arabia, now producing 9.5 mbd, did announce just before the meeting that it would add 800,000 barrels per day of production capacity in two new fields by the end of September. Kuwait is also planning a more modest expansion. The WTI crude price fell slightly after the meeting to US$43.58

   $$$$$$$$$

   http://www.haverfordtrust.com/commentaries_and_newsletters/ comm_archv_4q2004.html

   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

   OK, so what does this prove? It proves that there was an effort to lower gas prices for Novermber as I stated before and prices did come down in the 4th quarter (meaning November). It also proves that Thrawn is a dishonest debater pure and simple. If he wants to debate whether 1+1 does not = 2, lets debate that-- not then changing the 1 I'm talking about into an imaginary number that I'm not talking about.

   And my apologies for the interuption of this thread but I had to respond.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2006 @ 09:04am

10. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/19/2006 @ 09:04am

    (Now, this IS Keith Olberman's network, HSUB)

    By John W. Schoen Senior Producer---MSNBC

    The sharp drop in prices at the pump has a number of readers wondering: Is this just a ploy to defuse the issue of gasoline prices from the upcoming November elections? Ted in Connecticut wants to know: When the stock market collapsed after the 2000 bubble -- just where, exactly, did all that money go?

    Does anybody but myself wonder why oil prices have begun a rather precipitous drop just as the November elections approach? Just a coincidence? L.C. – Williamsburg, Va.

    No, a lot of readers have the same question. And there may be an answer out there in the blogosphere somewhere that will confirm these suspicions. But there's no evidence we can find to suggest that anyone in the White House or Congress is manipulating oil or gasoline prices to make for an easier trip on this fall's campaign trail.

    There's a lot of evidence to suggest that they couldn't if they wanted to. In April, for example, after President Bush announced a four-point plan to rein in the pain at the pump, gasoline prices soared.

    Simply put, there is no one person, company, group or country that can control the price of a commodity like oil that's traded on a global market. Even OPEC, which some readers believe "sets" the price of oil, has little or no control over oil pricing. Once upon a time, when those countries had lots of surplus production capacity, OPEC could decide to add or withhold supplies on the world market, which had some impact on prices. But that spare production capacity is gone. Even in its heyday, OPEC's efforts at price controls were subject to widespread cheating on production quotas by its members; the cartel's control over market prices was crude (pun intended) at best.

    So who, exactly, does set oil prices? If you have to put a face on it -- "the market" is the collection of oil traders who buy and sell barrels around the world, all day long. Oil is worth what they -- and their customers -- are willing to pay at the moment they agree on a trade. Some of those customers are investors, and over the past few years they've been making boatloads of money trading futures contracts. Those contracts are pieces of paper representing real oil, but most buyers and sellers have no intention of ever taking delivery of the oil.

    This summer, those investors made even bigger bets -- based on fears of an oil supply cutoff, or continued strong demand for oil, or worries about hurricanes knocking out production in the Gulf of Mexico -- you name it. As the summer wore on and those scenarios didn't play out, the same investors that had been bidding up oil prices beat a hasty retreat. As a result, spot oil prices have fallen from a peak of $78 in mid-July to about $63 at this writing. It turns out that, for now, there's plenty of oil to go around. But there's no guarantee prices won't go back up again if traders get another case of the jitters.

    As for the drop in gasoline prices, which a number of readers also attribute to an election-related conspiracy, the case is even clearer. For starters, that $15 drop in the price of a barrel of crude works out to about 36 cents a gallon. Since oil accounts for about half the price of making a gallon of gasoline, there's 18 cents off the price at the pump right there. The seasonal drop in demand, a milder-than-expected hurricane season and the flight of money out of the gasoline futures market has also helped drive pump prices down by 40 cents since the start of August.

    Though the drop at the pump is bigger and faster than usual, it's about as predictable as the coming of winter -- whether or not it's an election year. With demand from the summer driving season falling, and the heating oil season not yet here, the price of refined products generally falls this time of year.

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 09:13am

11. Though the drop at the pump is bigger and faster than usual, it's about as predictable as the coming of winter -- whether or not it's an election year. With demand from the summer driving season falling, and the heating oil season not yet here, the price of refined products generally falls this time of year.

    Posted by MASK 09/19/2006 @ 09:13am

    the price of oil in the market is determined determined by the number of buyers vs the number of sellers. More buyers than sellers... the price goes up. More sellers than buyers... the price goes down. With large institutional buyers playing theses markets anymore to get a precipitous drop in oil prices all they have to do is pull their money out for awhile.

    it appears they've done that

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 10:14am

12. Posted by WILL C. 09/19/2006 @ 10:14am

    Mr Schoen merely taking the wind out of the "conspiracy" sails, WILL. (note, everything there was a C&P from the MSNBC site, not my writing, but I think he's right).

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 10:25am

13. The title of the thread brings to mind something I saw which IMHO wins the "best bumper sticker award"

    OF COURSE IT HURTS, YOU'RE GETTING SCREWED BY AN ELEPHANT

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/19/2006 @ 11:41am

14. OF COURSE IT HURTS, YOU'RE GETTING SCREWED BY AN ELEPHANT

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 09/19/2006

    Have not seen that one... that is certainly an award winner.

    NOW, back to the thread.

    1) I think it should be mandatory in every state to have a FREE state issued photo ID in order to vote.

    2) I think people should have to swipe the bar code on the back into a computer to show that they have voted, to prevent them from voting elsewhere. But the computer recording this cannot be tied into the voting machines, as the need to provide anonymity in the voting process is paramount.

    3) All electronic machines should be tested by a bipartisan group. Paper trails should be mandatory.

    4) The state election commissioner should be barred from heading up a parties/candidates state election campaign.

    5) Every individual should be able to donate up to $5000 per candidate. Thus, everyone would have the ability to donate the same amount and express their freedom of speech. However, all Pacs/Lobbyists/Unions/Corporations etc... should not be allowed to raise money for candidates/political parties. They can use their freedom of speech to endorse candidates, but that is it. Their members have the ability to donate the cash based on the forementioned restriction.

    Posted by John B at 09/19/2006 @ 12:11pm

15. Posted by JOHN B 09/19/2006 @ 12:11am

    JOHN, like all but the last. Not because I see anything wrong with it, but because it won't "be enough" for the Campaign Finance Reform types.

    Once Exxon-Mobil forms "People For American Energy Solutions" and starts running ads for Senator Hufflepuff (R-Hogwarts)....they will start screaming about that, because challenger Rod Ravenclaw (D) is getting creamed in the polls. And THAT would happen, even under "public financing of campaigns"!

    There is NO solution to CFR, except cancellation of the 1st Amendment for any group or organization....that I (with an hour or so) couldn't find ONE way around....much less the political operatives with weeks or months.

    Even public financing is doomed to failure, since

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 12:19pm

16. Even public financing is doomed to failure, since

    Posted by MASK 09/19/2006 @ 12:19am

    Sorry....hehe

    Since every third and fourth party candidate would have a Constitutional case that THEY TOO would get financing....and the whole thing collapses as the "American Jedi Party" or the "Nude Socialist Transvestite Party" would demand funding too.

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 12:21pm

17. Mr Schoen merely taking the wind out of the "conspiracy" sails, WILL. (note, everything there was a C&P from the MSNBC site, not my writing, but I think he's right).

    Posted by MASK 09/19/2006 @ 10:25am

    mask I know it wasn't your writing... it made sense. but it didn't take any wind out of conspiricy sails because it couldn't account for the large drop in prices that exceed normal drops at this time of year.

    thats what's needed

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 12:35pm

18. WILL...

    "As for the drop in gasoline prices, which a number of readers also attribute to an election-related conspiracy, the case is even clearer....."

    Remember now...this is "Faux News" or the Wall Street Journal....this is KEITH OLBERMAN's MSNBC saying this stuff....hehe

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 12:38pm

19. Mask...

    you do not "cancel" a groups right to the first amendment. We as individuals are granted the right to free speech. All corporations/unions/Pacs/special interest groups etc... are made up of INDIVIDUALS. Those groups can pool the money of their members, but it counts against the $5k cap per person per candidate.

    Posted by John B at 09/19/2006 @ 12:46pm

20. Remember now...this is "Faux News" or the Wall Street Journal....this is KEITH OLBERMAN's MSNBC saying this stuff....hehe

    Posted by MASK 09/19/2006 @ 12:38am

    keith oberman doesn't own MSNBC.

    and why do you laugh at your own stupidity all the time

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 1:10pm

21. Posted by JOHN B 09/19/2006 @ 12:46am

    Two points, JOHN

    1. Do EVERY individual employee of Exxon count....when figuring the cap? Or just the executives? (and how do you justify it if it is?)

    2. Funding the candidate is irrelevant. I'm talking the ADVERTISING. If "People for American Energy" (the Oil Industry "front") run ads against Rod Ravenclaw...that's campaigning FOR Senator Hufflepuff, even if it has no direct connection to his campaign.

    Again, the CFR proponents on the Left....won't tolerate either point. But they can't come up with anything to stop it, that doesn't violate the First Amendment.

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 1:58pm

22. Posted by WILL C. 09/19/2006 @ 1:10pm

    So quote an MSNBC journalist when he goes on a 15 minute tirade against Bush and talk about "how somebody is finally speaking the Truth"....i.e. Olberman last week.

    but IGNORE the MSNBC journalist when he shows how it's NOT a conspiracy that oil prices have fallen.

    Okay....is there a "WILL-approved" list of MSNBC guys we can "trust"?

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 1:59pm

23. Two problems with his "Bill of Rights" -- part 3 is wrong, and part 4 is an inferior solution.

    First, part 4, since it doesn't require as in-depth of an explanation. While Instant Runoff Voting is better than Plurality, if you are going to use ranked ballots anyway you should use a Condorcet method -- if one candidate wins against every other candidate in a 1 on 1 election, he or she should be the overall winner, a criteria that IRV sometimes fails.

    Now for part 3, "In a democracy, public elections should be publicly financed." A better (and cheaper) solution would be to set up an election commission to accept all campaign donations, with a "50% rule" -- half of the money in a candidate's name goes directly into their account, and half is spread evenly among all declared candidates.

    For example, in a two candidate race, if someone gave $100 in candidate A's name, he would get $50 + $(50/2) or $75. Candidate B would get $25 from the same donation. Donations would not only go to help a candidate get elected, it would help ensure a more even race. Include immediate reporting of all donors contributing above a certain amount, and you could do away with campaign finance limits altogether -- people would see if Exxon tried to give $1 million to someone, and their opponent(s) would get a hefty chunk of it plus an issue to campaign on. The result would be a rather large decrease in Republican funds, probably a small increase in Democratic money, and a huge increase for Libertarians, Greens, and other minor parties to get out their message.

    Posted by Snarfangel at 09/19/2006 @ 2:32pm

24. but IGNORE the MSNBC journalist when he shows how it's NOT a conspiracy that oil prices have fallen.

    Okay....is there a "WILL-approved" list of MSNBC guys we can "trust"?

    Posted by MASK 09/19/2006 @ 1:59pm

    i never said ignore him. I said...

    it didn't take any wind out of conspiricy sails because it couldn't account for the large drop in prices that exceed normal drops at this time of year.

    thats what's needed

    this really has nothing to do with personalties

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 2:35pm

25. My point before, as to the price at the pump coming down during November just in time for the election has more to do with perception and the sense of well being per the economy voters have going to the polls, re: notice the scramble to get hsuB's numbers up for this November rather than scambling as soon as they'd dipped into the 40's. The idea is that voters are pretty short sighted-- with short attention spands, thus no matter what happens give the appearance everything is ok come November and they will follow (Rove). And so why didn't the price of oil go down in the '2000' election without 'someone' manipulating the costs-- and it wasn't at the Saidis end:

    "Far more controversial was the president's decision in late September to release 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Republicans, led by House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas), were quick to criticize the president's decision as election-driven, arguing that refineries are already near capacity and that the additional oil will not increase the amount of heating oil available this winter or decrease the price."

    http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/nov00/scene.html

    VAHAN ZANOYAN: I'm afraid I agree with Bob here. Oil companies have seen a big increase in their profits; no question about it. But one should look beyond that if we're talking, for example about gasoline prices and what's happening there. A lot of the profits come from the options side, which is the crude-oil production and supply side. It's the crude-oil prices that have reason from 10 to 30, which is tripling."

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/jan-june00/gas_prices_6-21.html

    MARK SHIELDS: I agree in part. Let me just say to my conservative friends what I've said about the economy now for six years: cheer up -- eventually things will get worse. In a week when the poverty rate among those over 65 is the lowest ever recorded, when the income for the bottom fifth of the population is growing faster than any other group, which has been one of the criticisms of the Clinton boom that the income disparity all of a sudden, for the bottom fifth who had been left behind is growing, when the poverty rate overall is the lowest it has been in 21 years. You get this information. George W. Bush needed this issue. There is no question about it. He has not been able to get traction on the economy. And I think he does on this one. I think...

    JIM LEHRER: Why?

    MARK SHIELDS: I think he does because the administration, which I think has been pretty darned effective politically, it's response, and the Gore campaign's has not been consistent or coherent. First they blamed it on the Republican Congress, blamed it on the big oil companies...

    JIM LEHRER: You mean high prices.

    Not energy independent

    MARK SHIELDS: The Republican Congress had not acted on their proposals. And you know, they just have... I think the issue, Jim, quite frankly of energy independence resonates with Americans. We have not been energy independent... we've talked about it since 1973. It has never developed. I think for the out party, it is a good issue. There is no question about it.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec00/oil_9-29.html

    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/h/heating/i ndex.html?query=PRESIDENTIAL%20ELECTION%20OF%202000&field=des&match=exac t?

    Yeah pretty funny about that energy plan the hsuB admin/Cheney came up with, really working out just fine. And it's not like the manipulation doesn't happen or isn't effective to torpedo or remove candidates-- what happened to CA Gov. in 2000-01?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

    I say there's tons of manipulation going on right now and it's all geared at alterring voters perception of the issues driving the November elections and in that way fixing the voting machines is only one step. Media and economic manipulation is a much harder nut to crack. For sure impossible if everyone ignores even the possibility that it's occurring.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2006 @ 3:09pm

26. 1st amendment - Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridgement of speech..."

    HMMM, says nothing about campaign donations (or money in general), does it? Seems to me that the inclusion of corporations as "individuals" smacks of activist judges. Common sense might justly show that free speech in this instance might include: making speeches in behalf of a candidate; passing out campaign literature; voting for a candidate; etc. Public financing would make it possible for anybody, regardless of financial stature, to run for office. All candidates would therefore be limited only by the message, and not by the ability to finance a campaign. If there should be a cap put on financing, how about a cap for total contributions? Instead of individuals only being able to donate up to $5000, how about each candidate can only spend up $1,000,000? Public airwaves should be available free of charge for campaign rhetoric. Any system that forces candidates to raise obscene amounts of money, just to enter a campaign, automatically creates a system wherein those with the most money and deepest pockets have the only legitimate chance at election. And once elected, they owe a great deal to the donors who financed their campaign, instead of to the electorate as a whole.

    Posted by Turk33 at 09/19/2006 @ 3:12pm

27. Again, to all you CFR (campaign finance reform) guys....

    How do you "stop" the "newly formed 'People for American Energy' Committee" from FREELY SPEAKING (i.e. advertising on radio and TV), without violating the First Amendment, especially when it concerns POLITICAL SPEECH?

    And remember this....this applies NOT ONLY to groups like my "PAE" (formed by Big Oil)....but the SIERRA CLUB, the National Resources Defense Council, NOW, NARAL, People for the American Way.

    You CANNOT make a law that says that some corporate-funded political group can't talk...but a "public interest" political group (granting that to the environmentalists and feminists) can.

    even an "Earl Warren" US Supreme Court would deny that.

    And without being able to stop that....it is tantamount campaigning for either a candidate or a political party....no matter how much money the actual candidate or party gets!

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 3:33pm

28. You CANNOT make a law that says that some corporate-funded political group can't talk...but a "public interest" political group (granting that to the environmentalists and feminists) can.

    Posted by MASK 09/19/2006 @ 3:33pm

    but you could pass a law that says that corporations can't fund political groups

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 3:39pm

29. but you could pass a law that says that corporations can't fund political groups

    Posted by WILL C. 09/19/2006 @ 3:39pm

    You could? Okay, let's say THAT stood up in the Supreme Court.

    Can you make a law that says that Exxon can't grant a "one-time bonus" to Rex Tillerson (E-M CEO) of $50 Million....and that Rex Tillerson can't "amazingly" find $50 million in his bank account to support a group called "People for American Energy Independence"?

    How about a think-tank? The "Rex Tillerson Center for Environmental Studies" sponsering a series of TV ads on global warming and how Rod Ravenclaw, Democrat running in the 4077th District, would destroy the economy with his CO2 emissions plan?

    Shall I go on?

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 3:53pm

30. Mask....

    "1. Do EVERY individual employee of Exxon count....when figuring the cap? Or just the executives? (and how do you justify it if it is?) "

    YES MASK... every single individual, no matter where they work, no matter what their gender/age/race/sexual orientation etc... they all get the same cap... it's called EQUALITY.

    "2. Funding the candidate is irrelevant. I'm talking the ADVERTISING. If "People for American Energy" (the Oil Industry "front") run ads against Rod Ravenclaw...that's campaigning FOR Senator Hufflepuff, even if it has no direct connection to his campaign."

    I am talking about eliminating that all together. Only the candidates would be able to buy campaign ads.

    Again, the CFR proponents on the Left....won't tolerate either point. But they can't come up with anything to stop it, that doesn't violate the First Amendment.

    Posted by MASK 09/19/2006 @ 1:58pm

    Posted by John B at 09/19/2006 @ 3:56pm

31. "Again, the CFR proponents on the Left....won't tolerate either point. But they can't come up with anything to stop it, that doesn't violate the First Amendment. "

    Sorry Mask, meant to address that part as well... it is the individuals within a group/organization/pac etc... that is entitled to free speech. If they want to run an ad on an issue, fine... but if they mention a candidate... it counts against the individuals in the groups cap for that candidate.

    Posted by John B at 09/19/2006 @ 3:59pm

32. Posted by MASK 09/19/2006 @ 3:33pm

    Can a political org or commercial be taxed? I heard that churches are under scrutiny for political endorsements from the church pulpit and thus tax worthy. Tax the commercials or just the organization that sponsers a polically endorsed commercial? Still it wouldn't stop it. What about the fairness doctrine done away with during Reagan? What if each commercial is vetted for truthfuliness? Having to submit them 2-3 weeks ahead of airing and deny if it's wearing falsies or even stating on the commercial where there's false or questionable statments would certainly reduce the attempt to smear or falsify info I'd think, no?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2006 @ 4:15pm

33. Shall I go on?

    Posted by MASK 09/19/2006 @ 3:53pm

    why do we ned to go on? the supreame court backed me

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 4:19pm

34. and bonuses are taxed right?

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 4:19pm

35. Ok, yes, Will's right-- outlaw corporations from sponsering political commercials would help. And make the fairness doctrine law. With the added benefit that faux news talking heads would blow up!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2006 @ 4:21pm

36. Posted by JOHN B 09/19/2006 @ 3:56pm

    How do you distinquish between "campaign ads" and "issue ads"? That's the whole problem with pre-McCain/Feingold "soft money" rules?

    If "People for American Energy Independence" put out an ad that says "Those who say a 25% reduction in CO2 is economically sustainable are wrong....here are some facts...."

    and Rod Ravenclaw (Democrat) is the one putting out a plan for a 25% CO2 reduction....that's not only an ad AGAINST him, but FOR his opponent.

    How do you "ban" that, without crossing into First Amendment territory?

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 4:33pm

37. Instead of individuals only being able to donate up to $5000, how about each candidate can only spend up $1,000,000? Public airwaves should be available free of charge for campaign rhetoric. Any system that forces candidates to raise obscene amounts of money, just to enter a campaign, automatically creates a system wherein those with the most money and deepest pockets have the only legitimate chance at election. And once elected, they owe a great deal to the donors who financed their campaign, instead of to the electorate as a whole.

    Posted by TURK33 09/19/2006 @ 3:12pm

    Turk... great idea. It is certainly better than my "5k cap" idea.

    I think we would need to define a specific amount of time (meaning in hours, not time of day/month) per month that the candidates could use the airwaves.

    Posted by John B at 09/19/2006 @ 4:34pm

38. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/19/2006 @ 4:15pm

    As noted....first getting past the US Supreme Court...but second...

    You willing to apply those standard to NOT ONLY the "corporate-sponsered" commercials....but the ones from the environmentalists?

    and who is going to "vette the commercial for truth"? "A bipartisan committee"? You mean....like the FEC? And what is "truth"? IS there "definitive" proof of global warming?...no, even the scientists say it's not "definitive", just "highly probable"? Is there "truth" that tax cuts help or HURT an economy?

    As I said, you (like most CFR) CANNOT come up with a "plan" that isn't...

    A. a violation of the First Amendment

    B. unworkable, given a CEO of Exxon is as much an "individual expressing free speech" as the Sierra Club President is.

    C. Asks for impossible "standards" or "reviews"...like a "committee to vette POLITICAL COMMERICAL for 'truth'"!?!?!?

    D. Or hurts LEFT-wing organizations as much (or worse) than it hurts RIGHT-wing ones....and hence gets NO support from either.

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2006 @ 4:39pm

39. You willing to apply those standard to NOT ONLY the "corporate-sponsered" commercials....but the ones from the environmentalists?

    Posted by MASK 09/19/2006 @ 4:39pm

    they are two different entities. exxon is for profit. the sieria club is not for profit. The ban would be on for profit corporations from giving money to political groups and it would would mean that they couldn't give money to the sierra club

    but the ceo of exxon is always still free to give his post tax personal income to the sierra club.

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 5:00pm

40. The Fairness Doctrine wasn't ever unconstitutional first of all. Second there's always been a question as to the 'personhood' of a corporation, and thus corporate contributions nonmingling with non-profits sponsoership of public interest spots. And there's where the line should always be drawn, for profit or not for profit-- that is the question. So we get another 2 to 3 times the number of FBI agents inventigating corruption and lttle by little inch our way back to sanity and morality. Now thanks what I'm talking about.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/453860p-381809c.html

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2006 @ 5:01pm

41. That's, no thanks.. ha.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2006 @ 5:03pm

42. Ok, inventigating is really a combo of being inventive while investigating...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2006 @ 5:26pm

43. unless you have a combo HVAC/fencing business

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 5:31pm

44. Good one. But I like more the corralling in on that 7th day.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2006 @ 5:44pm

45. 2. This is further evidenced by their unrelenting hatred of corporations. This hatred can only be justified by a true belief in Marxist dogma. The hatred of corporations as evidenced by some like Will C and Bushfools borders on paranoid schizophrenia. Others manifest in more traditional far left general disdain.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/19/2006 @ 8:58pm

    Great...unsubstantiated accusations

    Is that all you're good for anymore luvvy? You used to at least try to support your statements.

    But if you want to back up what you're saying old man, hey...we can talk

    Posted by Will C. at 09/19/2006 @ 9:26pm

46. Interesting; if your evidence actually indicated anything about Saudi Arabia trying to lower oil prices, it must have failed pretty badly. They increased their production of oil in September, and it hadn't helped the US a month later. So...you lose again.

    Also, even if you were right about this, it wouldn't matter. If the Saudis are messing around with oil prices, you can't blame it on the President. It would be an independent decisions by the Saudis because they think it in their interest, and not any kind of indication of corruption by President Bush.

    Sidenote: A quarter is, quite literally, 1/4 of a year. So, it's unclear how October 30 would be in the third quarter, and November 2 would be in the fourth. If oil prices went up in the fourth quarter, therefore, it wouldn't help Bush anyway.

    Posted by THRAWN 09/19/2006 @ 7:47pm

    Once again TH RAWN is wrong and being disingenuous. I clearly said NOVEMBER several times now and he's playing dumbass stradegy and he keeps going backwards to October. Saudis annouced another incease in production for NOVEMBER 1-- (clearly stated in the articles I cite per after the 4th quarter not his third quarter reviews), re: futures, meant to drive costs down not up. Keep playing your BS games TH RAWNg and you just show yourself to be a new con'ner asswipe all the more. The argument was and is collusion via circumstantial evidence and if there was any kind of oversight in the corrupt repub k-street congress it would have already been investigated. You are such an obviously bad debater that you have to constantly resort to misdirection it makes to pitiful.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/20/2006 @ 01:36am

47. Posted by WILL C. 09/19/2006 @ 5:00pm

    Will, you don't understand...it wouldn't be "for profit" Exxon-Mobile producing the ads....but the "non-profit" "Americans for Energy Independence" group....sponsered by Exxon-Mobil!

    Easiest thing in the world to establish.

    Posted by Mask at 09/20/2006 @ 10:10am

48. Accountants track fund routed accounts all the time, i.e. money laundering, tax evasion, etc.-- it's the easiest thing to do, thus if illegal for 'for profit' corporations to fund political commercials (and LOBBISTS some day), the 'for profit' corporation would be in violation as well as the 'non-profit' for accepting the money.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/20/2006 @ 11:44am

49. LET AMERICA VOTE ACT (EMERGENCY PAPER BALLOT MANDATE OF 2006)

    Emergency paper ballots shall be made available at every voting jurisdiction in the United States during the November 7th, 2006 General Election. These paper ballots shall be available in sufficient numbers for optional use by voters who prefer to use them, and by all voters in the event of voting machine failure or unavailability. These paper ballots are not to be provisional ballots, but regular paper ballots that shall be counted immediately upon the close of polls on election night along with all other votes cast by properly registered voters.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-friedman/ the-let-america-vote-act_b_2 9811.html

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/20/2006 @ 2:30pm