Mass. court turns over gay marriage ban

[Jobber of the Week 0]

How in the blue heavens did this thread go from the role of courts in the government to a bitchfest over spending?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Like Tyler said before:

 

Welcome to CE...

[Ace309 0]

With the ruling, how can that be the case? How can you state that the previously illegal gay marriages ARE legal while polygamy is not?

 

Just fyi, and I don't have a cite for this handy because I read it in this morning's Buffalo NEWS (so it was probably of Knight-Ridder or AP), there was specific language in the opinion referring to marriage as a union of two "to the exclusion of all others." While that does end up being circular - Polygamy is banned because we banned the marriage of someone to more than one person - it does present a safeguard in the state law.

 

More broadly, and here I'm relying entirely on the news article, the opinion seemed to be reasoned on the basis of encouraging committed unions between people and the resulting families, rather than "transient" ones. Setting aside all debate about whether a gay civil union can constitute a family in the same way that a heterosexual civil union can (the court obviously thinks it can), the opinion seems to say that only unions between two people encourage that sort of commitment.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

EDIT: Nevermind. Let's keep our fourms clean, and on-topic.

[Justice 0]

The "right of privacy" is not one of the enumerated powers found in the Constitution - it's a legal fiction that the Court has read into the Constitution as being an "implied" power. But it doesn't exist there on its own.

 

The right to have national banks isn't expressed in the Constitution, either. Do you suggest that Congress doesn't have the power to charter a bank?

 

Do you suggest Congress doesn't have the power to charter such things as the FCC, etc.? That wasn't in the constitution, either.

Then again, that's under the implied powers of CONGRESS, Tyler. The right to privacy was created by the Court itself. If we want a right to privacy, make it an amendment and pass it through Congress because the Courts themselves don't have the power to do so themselves: it's a Legislative Branch power, not a Judicial branch power.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Yeah, I'm aware of the implied powers stuff, blah blah, and I'm also aware that the right to privacy was more of a stretch than, say, chartering the national banks. However, to say that there's no basis for having a "right to privacy" at all is kinda silly, IMO. I haven't read Roe to the extent that I should in order to make a real argument for it, though, so I won't.

 

As for the spending, I think the difference is that Soros is the current "ARGH YOU SUCK FOR SPENDING MONEY!!!11!!!!1!" guy right now, and Scaife spent most of his money to try to oust Clinton from office. I had a better, less biased website than that probably three months ago, but I just clicked the first "Scaife" link I found. Whatever. I assume you're not going to make an argument of the fact that Scaife is to the Republicans what Soros is to the Democrats, because if you denied that, it'd just be silly. Scaife is the reason why most conservative magazines and foundations exist. Ditto Soros with liberal foundations and magazines. Both sides have their assholes, because it's politics. It's a fucking ugly system that is full of utter corruption on both sides of the aisle, and if either you or I could fix it, I'm sure we would. But we can't, so we sit on this message board and bitch about the other side and ignore our own side's problems.

 

Oh well, I was kinda enjoying the argument from a law perspective, so let's do that again~

Edited November 21, 2003 by Tyler McClelland

[Guest MikeSC]

Yeah, I'm aware of the implied powers stuff, blah blah, and I'm also aware that the right to privacy was more of a stretch than, say, chartering the national banks. However, to say that there's no basis for having a "right to privacy" at all is kinda silly, IMO. I haven't read Roe to the extent that I should in order to make a real argument for it, though, so I won't.

 

As for the spending, I think the difference is that Soros is the current "ARGH YOU SUCK FOR SPENDING MONEY!!!11!!!!1!" guy right now, and Scaife spent most of his money to try to oust Clinton from office. I had a better, less biased website than that probably three months ago, but I just clicked the first "Scaife" link I found. Whatever. I assume you're not going to make an argument of the fact that Scaife is to the Republicans what Soros is to the Democrats, because if you denied that, it'd just be silly. Scaife is the reason why most conservative magazines and foundations exist. Ditto Soros with liberal foundations and magazines. Both sides have their assholes, because it's politics. It's a fucking ugly system that is full of utter corruption on both sides of the aisle, and if either you or I could fix it, I'm sure we would. But we can't, so we sit on this message board and bitch about the other side and ignore our own side's problems.

 

Oh well, I was kinda enjoying the argument from a law perspective, so let's do that again~

Well, if you wish to argue the law here, we can:

 

What the left is doing is legal. I'm not beginning to claim that it is anything but.

 

HOWEVER, their reliance on groups like Soros' groups et al are a CLEAR violation of the law's intention and simply proved that the GOP's fears about the bill (namely, it won't actually help the problem whatsoever and will, in fact, lead to more "independent" groups who are funded by wealthy people who only attack one side --- as opposed to being "independent voter education" services as they are supposed to be).

 

Bush is raising his money and the conservatives are basically relying solely on the RNC and Bush's campaign for him. The Dems seem to have a strategy of using groups like Soros as a major part of their election-year strategy to attack Bush.

 

And, just for an even MORE irrelevant aside, I'm reading Franken's "Lies". Entertaining as heck (while as obnoxious as O'Reilly, he is considerably more funny) --- but he is as guilty of selective quoting and deception as he bitches about the right --- and if the liberal radio network includes him and one other host who has been bandied about, he'll be REAL hypocritical if he doesn't attack the other "major name" for that network.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

HOWEVER, their reliance on groups like Soros' groups et al are a CLEAR violation of the law's intention and simply proved that the GOP's fears about the bill (namely, it won't actually help the problem whatsoever and will, in fact, lead to more "independent" groups who are funded by wealthy people who only attack one side --- as opposed to being "independent voter education" services as they are supposed to be).

 

I'd definitely agree with that, but then again, I'd also say that it's the same type of stuff the Right did en masse in the early/middle 90's against Clinton. There is no real solution to this problem, barring free advertising time for candidates (which, I believe, would go a long way towards fixing the problem).

 

I haven't finished "Lies" yet, unfortunately. I'm probably going to end up reading it on Tuesday at the airport. I'll respond to the second comment then

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Bush is raising his money and the conservatives are basically relying solely on the RNC and Bush's campaign for him. The Dems seem to have a strategy of using groups like Soros as a major part of their election-year strategy to attack Bush.

If you're under the impression they're not going to return favor in kind, then you're wrong. Half that article is just harping on what's going on in the left side, but if you squint you'll see the part where the right is hoping to use this news to spur on similar donations.

 

Also, I stopped reading opinion books somewhere between The O'Reilly Factor (okay book, better than follow-up "The No-Spin Zone" which is way higher in the count of pointing fingers) and Stupid White Men (well, Moore has a sense of humor. But that's about it.)

[Guest MikeSC]

HOWEVER, their reliance on groups like Soros' groups et al are a CLEAR violation of the law's intention and simply proved that the GOP's fears about the bill (namely, it won't actually help the problem whatsoever and will, in fact, lead to more "independent" groups who are funded by wealthy people who only attack one side --- as opposed to being "independent voter education" services as they are supposed to be).

 

I'd definitely agree with that, but then again, I'd also say that it's the same type of stuff the Right did en masse in the early/middle 90's against Clinton. There is no real solution to this problem, barring free advertising time for candidates (which, I believe, would go a long way towards fixing the problem).

 

I haven't finished "Lies" yet, unfortunately. I'm probably going to end up reading it on Tuesday at the airport. I'll respond to the second comment then

Free ad time for the candidates is a horrid idea. It won't fix the problem (the only way you can would be to BAN political advertising, which would be more than in mild violation of the Constitution) and would only serve as ANOTHER thing to gripe about. The really obscure party candidates will complain that they have no voice. So, TV stations will have to give time to ALL candidates --- which is absurd.

 

Add into that WHEN would the candidates be given time? During prime time? Who's going to reimburse networks for the prime revenue loss? Late-night? That won't help anything.

 

Honestly, the Dems have ALWAYS had groups like unions, which have huge money and tons of "volunteers" to do their dirty work, so it's not like the GOP has ever had an advantage there.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Bush is raising his money and the conservatives are basically relying solely on the RNC and Bush's campaign for him. The Dems seem to have a strategy of using groups like Soros as a major part of their election-year strategy to attack Bush.

If you're under the impression they're not going to return favor in kind, then you're wrong. Half that article is just harping on what's going on in the left side, but if you squint you'll see the part where the right is hoping to use this news to spur on similar donations.

 

Also, I stopped reading opinion books somewhere between The O'Reilly Factor (okay book, better than follow-up "The No-Spin Zone" which is way higher in the count of pointing fingers) and Stupid White Men (well, Moore has a sense of humor. But that's about it.)

However, as I think Tyler (might have been you) stated, you can't have a fair campaign if one party is not going to follow the rules.

 

Personally, what I would do, is remove most restrictions. Ban non-citizens from donating, of course, but other than that, let it all fly.

 

BUT, require STRICT reporting of EVERY dime given. Let the Dems explain how they're not beholden to special interests when Soros gives them untold millions of dollars.

 

Of course, the question is --- what do you do if a candidate doesn't do this? I mean, Clinton did, flat-out, break campaign finance rules in 1996 (let's not even pretend otherwise). What do you do if a candidate does it again?

 

Do you invalidate an election won by nefarious money?

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

In the little book discussion here, I'm suddenly reminded of our Senate Simulation where we threatened a filibuster by holding up Slander and threatening to read the entire book .

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

The television stations have no claim to their profits. They're using the public airwaves to broadcast their programs, and if you gave all ballot qualified candidates equal access to advertising (on all channels, at the same time slots in order to prevent equal protection issues), it'd eliminate a lot of the need for major fundraising.

 

I've done a ton of research on this field, and if you'd like to debate it from a legal perspective, you're certainly welcome to try. You're not going to win, though.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Only thing I find funny about campaign finance reform is that Big Media is all about it, yet polls show the public could care less about the issue.

 

Now why would Big Media be for limiting political ads and the like? To give Big Media more influence come election time?

 

Nahhh.

 

(I have to be a conspiracy theorist on some things...)

[Guest MikeSC]

The television stations have no claim to their profits. They're using the public airwaves to broadcast their programs, and if you gave all ballot qualified candidates equal access to advertising (on all channels, at the same time slots in order to prevent equal protection issues), it'd eliminate a lot of the need for major fundraising.

 

I've done a ton of research on this field, and if you'd like to debate it from a legal perspective, you're certainly welcome to try. You're not going to win, though.

Do you realize ALL of the problems this could cause?

 

What if, say, the Democratic candidate got a "better timeslot" than the Republican candidate? What about the Green or Reform Parties? What channels have to televise it? What if a channel decides to televise one candidate and not the others? Do you have any idea how long would this be log jammed in court before it came to pass?

 

It wouldn't change anything. You'd STILL have the soft money groups doing the usual thing. I don't think AARP or NAACP would cease running "issue ads" (as big a misnomer as there is) because there is "free air time" given to candidates. Heck, do you think a party wouldn't slide money to a channel to get a better timeslot?

 

There is a universal truth that people need to realize: If the current laws are being ignored, NEW laws will ALSO be ignored.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

That's probably the worst kept secret in history, by the way.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

What if, say, the Democratic candidate got a "better timeslot" than the Republican candidate?

 

It would all, presumably, be in prime time. Thus, no complaints.

 

What about the Green or Reform Parties?

 

If they qualify for the ballot, they'd be allowed the same benefits as major party candidates.

 

What channels have to televise it?

 

Any and all, theoretically. Again, this isn't my proposal but I've done tons of research on it.

 

What if a channel decides to televise one candidate and not the others?

 

Under that theoretical instance, the FCC would have the right to revoke that channel's broadcasting license.

 

Do you have any idea how long would this be log jammed in court before it came to pass?

 

Probably, but it'd pass very easily. It's a slam dunk for the regulators with all of the precedent on their side (I can name the cases if you challenge that, but I'd rather not for the sake of sleep).

 

It wouldn't change anything. You'd STILL have the soft money groups doing the usual thing. I don't think AARP or NAACP would cease running "issue ads" (as big a misnomer as there is) because there is "free air time" given to candidates.

 

It would change quite a bit. If you were to further regulate these soft money corporations and issue ad type folk (or even if you don't; free air time would at least let these candidates respond to the attacks, which is a big upgrade from the current system), it'd bring the system CLOSER to perfection. Key word is CLOSER because there is no one perfect solution to this or any problem.

 

Heck, do you think a party wouldn't slide money to a channel to get a better timeslot?

 

Again, there's not much of a difference between the 8:12 timeslot and the 9:55 one, so I don't think that issue would come to pass.

[Guest MikeSC]

What if, say, the Democratic candidate got a "better timeslot" than the Republican candidate?

 

It would all, presumably, be in prime time. Thus, no complaints.

 

8 and 10P have different audiences.

 

What about the Green or Reform Parties?

 

If they qualify for the ballot, they'd be allowed the same benefits as major party candidates.

 

What ballot? Every state has different ballot procedures. Do they have to be on ALL state ballots? Enough ballots to theoretically win the election?

 

What channels have to televise it?

 

Any and all, theoretically. Again, this isn't my proposal but I've done tons of research on it.

 

So, EVERY channel would have to televise it? ESPN, HBO --- all of them?

 

What if a channel decides to televise one candidate and not the others?

 

Under that theoretical instance, the FCC would have the right to revoke that channel's broadcasting license.

 

Seeing as how there is no fairness doctrine any longer (thank God), this would be really iffy.

 

Do you have any idea how long would this be log jammed in court before it came to pass?

 

Probably, but it'd pass very easily. It's a slam dunk for the regulators with all of the precedent on their side (I can name the cases if you challenge that, but I'd rather not for the sake of sleep).

 

The networks have OBSCENELY deep pockets and would fight it.

 

Well, until they realized how EASILY they could manipulate the entire process --- which is another concern in and of itself.

 

It wouldn't change anything. You'd STILL have the soft money groups doing the usual thing. I don't think AARP or NAACP would cease running "issue ads" (as big a misnomer as there is) because there is "free air time" given to candidates.

 

It would change quite a bit. If you were to further regulate these soft money corporations and issue ad type folk (or even if you don't; free air time would at least let these candidates respond to the attacks, which is a big upgrade from the current system), it'd bring the system CLOSER to perfection. Key word is CLOSER because there is no one perfect solution to this or any problem.

 

When current laws are not being enforced, passing new laws isn't the issue. Any further laws would tread on the First Amendment.

 

Heck, do you think a party wouldn't slide money to a channel to get a better timeslot?

 

Again, there's not much of a difference between the 8:12 timeslot and the 9:55 one, so I don't think that issue would come to pass.

 

You'd be surprised. I'm sure there are studies about which groups watch at which timeslots.

-=Mike

...Heck, how LONG do the candidates get? Thirty minutes each?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

8 and 10P have different audiences.

 

Not substaintially enough to warrant argument. Plus, it's not as if they'd be aired at the exact same time every night.

 

What ballot? Every state has different ballot procedures. Do they have to be on ALL state ballots? Enough ballots to theoretically win the election?

 

Naw, local ballots. Meaning, every candidate that qualified for the Virginia Ballot would have the air time in Virginia markets, etc.

 

So, EVERY channel would have to televise it? ESPN, HBO --- all of them?

 

I doubt that it'd be a cable requirement. It's probably just the free broadcast channels.

 

Seeing as how there is no fairness doctrine any longer (thank God), this would be really iffy.

 

Not really. The FCC still has the right to stipulate the terms of license for any potential licensee, and being that these licensees don't own the property on which they broadcast, this can be done retroactively, too.

 

The networks have OBSCENELY deep pockets and would fight it.

 

Well, until they realized how EASILY they could manipulate the entire process --- which is another concern in and of itself.

 

Oh, I know they'd fight it nonstop, but it doesn't mean they'd win in court. There's too much precedent against them, such as Munn v. Illinois (original precedent legalizing government price fixing), Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (if it's not specifically stated in the contract, there IS no right to profit), and any number of cases that state the FCC has the right to regulate content in the public's interest. And I could name about ten cases with language that assures us that learning about the democratic process etc. and becoming informed voters is in the public's best interest.

 

When current laws are not being enforced, passing new laws isn't the issue. Any further laws would tread on the First Amendment.

 

Not in this case. If it were a newspaper, yes. However, the public owns the airwaves and the FCC, charged with upholding the public's interest, has virtual carte blanche over this sort of thing... DNC v. CBS aside. Also, DNC v. CBS was simply in favor of editorializing, which these channels wouldn't be forced to abstain from.

 

You'd be surprised. I'm sure there are studies about which groups watch at which timeslots.

 

True, but the difference -- I'd imagine, anyway -- would be pretty negligable and it's not like they'd be only shown at one particular time.

 

...Heck, how LONG do the candidates get? Thirty minutes each?

 

In the mock court case I argued in, the scenerio was 90 minutes for each candidate. However, the numbers I've heard thrown around are from 30-60 each.

[Guest MikeSC]

8 and 10P have different audiences.

 

Not substaintially enough to warrant argument. Plus, it's not as if they'd be aired at the exact same time every night.

 

Heck, for that matter, how often would they get TV time? Every night? At a certain point, the networks have to be allowed to try and actually make a little money, seeing as how the gov't doesn't own them.

 

What ballot? Every state has different ballot procedures. Do they have to be on ALL state ballots? Enough ballots to theoretically win the election?

 

Naw, local ballots. Meaning, every candidate that qualified for the Virginia Ballot would have the air time in Virginia markets, etc.

 

And the stations that border states? What if a candidate qualifies in NC, but not in SC? People on the border get the other states channels.

 

You think I'm nitpicking here --- but these are all issues that will have to be addressed.

 

So, EVERY channel would have to televise it? ESPN, HBO --- all of them?

 

I doubt that it'd be a cable requirement. It's probably just the free broadcast channels.

 

Why should cable be free of this requirement? Networks might bitch about this, saying that cable companies occupy the same public airwaves.

 

Seeing as how there is no fairness doctrine any longer (thank God), this would be really iffy.

 

Not really. The FCC still has the right to stipulate the terms of license for any potential licensee, and being that these licensees don't own the property on which they broadcast, this can be done retroactively, too.

 

But on what grounds would they remove the licenses? The FCC, I don't think, can't MAKE you show anything. If a channel decided to not show the State of the Union, what could the FCC do about it? (not a sarcastic question)

 

The networks have OBSCENELY deep pockets and would fight it.

 

Well, until they realized how EASILY they could manipulate the entire process --- which is another concern in and of itself.

 

Oh, I know they'd fight it nonstop, but it doesn't mean they'd win in court. There's too much precedent against them, such as Munn v. Illinois (original precedent legalizing government price fixing), Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (if it's not specifically stated in the contract, there IS no right to profit), and any number of cases that state the FCC has the right to regulate content in the public's interest. And I could name about ten cases with language that assures us that learning about the democratic process etc. and becoming informed voters is in the public's best interest.

 

But then they could argue that newspapers should be required to do this, since they use public roads to be taken to their distribution locations.

 

Again, these are issues that would be raised.

 

When current laws are not being enforced, passing new laws isn't the issue. Any further laws would tread on the First Amendment.

 

Not in this case. If it were a newspaper, yes. However, the public owns the airwaves and the FCC, charged with upholding the public's interest, has virtual carte blanche over this sort of thing... DNC v. CBS aside. Also, DNC v. CBS was simply in favor of editorializing, which these channels wouldn't be forced to abstain from.

 

And THAT is the biggest problem. If soft money is curtailed, the groups can gripe that the networks are slanted against them and THEIR free speech is being impeded.

 

You'd be surprised. I'm sure there are studies about which groups watch at which timeslots.

 

True, but the difference -- I'd imagine, anyway -- would be pretty negligable and it's not like they'd be only shown at one particular time.

 

...Heck, how LONG do the candidates get? Thirty minutes each?

 

In the mock court case I argued in, the scenerio was 90 minutes for each candidate. However, the numbers I've heard thrown around are from 30-60 each.

 

If they go 90 minutes and there are more than 2 candidates, that would cause scheduling problems.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

BUT, require STRICT reporting of EVERY dime given. Let the Dems explain how they're not beholden to special interests when Soros gives them untold millions of dollars.

I don't know if you're sure what Soros' angle is or what. Do you think he's trying to buy his way into the next administration or something? Get a Haliburton style contract with some company he has an interest in or something?

 

By what I've read, he's given money to various humanitarian sources but has a personal vendetta against Bush. How is that a special interest, besides being wealthier than most?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Heck, for that matter, how often would they get TV time? Every night? At a certain point, the networks have to be allowed to try and actually make a little money, seeing as how the gov't doesn't own them.

 

The proposal was that each candidate got their amount of airtime to be used anytime 90 days before the election. And again, Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, the licensee has no right to profit unless it is expressed in the contract (which it isn't). It's not the government's problem that this costs the broadcaster money.

 

That's not a statement of whether that's right or wrong, it's simply how it is.

 

And the stations that border states? What if a candidate qualifies in NC, but not in SC? People on the border get the other states channels.

 

You think I'm nitpicking here --- but these are all issues that will have to be addressed.

 

No, I know that this nitpicking would occur. I, personally, don't know what the provisions had to say about that, but I'd presume that they would simply give equal time to all candidates who were ballot qualified in the state with more candidates.

 

Why should cable be free of this requirement? Networks might bitch about this, saying that cable companies occupy the same public airwaves.

 

Indeed, which would lead me to believe that it would be required of cable television as well. I'm simply not sure about the rules' provisions, etc. I apologize for not having specifics about that.

 

But on what grounds would they remove the licenses? The FCC, I don't think, can't MAKE you show anything. If a channel decided to not show the State of the Union, what could the FCC do about it? (not a sarcastic question)

 

I'd presume that the SOTU falls under their public interest requirements on their licensing agreement, and yes, the FCC *does* have the power to revoke those licenses. That's one thing I'm sure about; they're the presiding body in this, and they have the right to revoke the license (and basically kick the channel off the air) if the requirements aren't followed.

 

But then they could argue that newspapers should be required to do this, since they use public roads to be taken to their distribution locations.

 

Again, these are issues that would be raised.

 

Likely so. However, if you argue public roads being used for distribution (which, frankly, is quite a weak argument, even though it'd probably be used), you have to concede that not every recieves these publications by delivery and whatnot. It's somewhat of a weak argument, and I don't think it has THAT much bearing in this particular case.

 

And THAT is the biggest problem. If soft money is curtailed, the groups can gripe that the networks are slanted against them and THEIR free speech is being impeded.

 

Indeed, and there would be much less of an argument against their rights. However, like I said, this is simply a step in the right direction, not a fix all.

 

If they go 90 minutes and there are more than 2 candidates, that would cause scheduling problems.

 

The argument would be, again, that it's not the government's problem. They've got 90 days to show 90 minutes of programming per candidate. Even in the states with the most relaxed ballot qualifications, that'd be an average of 20 minutes advertizing per day. In a 3 hour block, that's hardly crippling (although it does put a dent in their profits).

[Guest MikeSC]

BUT, require STRICT reporting of EVERY dime given. Let the Dems explain how they're not beholden to special interests when Soros gives them untold millions of dollars.

I don't know if you're sure what Soros' angle is or what. Do you think he's trying to buy his way into the next administration or something? Get a Haliburton style contract with some company he has an interest in or something?

 

By what I've read, he's given money to various humanitarian sources but has a personal vendetta against Bush. How is that a special interest, besides being wealthier than most?

Soros holds a wide array of interests. It is not exactly a stretch to imagine he might want some protection of his interests. What I don't get is the hatred of Haliburton --- it's not like people are naming MORE capable companies of doing what they're doing in Iraq.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Heck, for that matter, how often would they get TV time? Every night? At a certain point, the networks have to be allowed to try and actually make a little money, seeing as how the gov't doesn't own them.

 

The proposal was that each candidate got their amount of airtime to be used anytime 90 days before the election. And again, Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, the licensee has no right to profit unless it is expressed in the contract (which it isn't). It's not the government's problem that this costs the broadcaster money.

 

The stations could argue that they are being put under an unfair burden economically. They could argue that they are being required to forfeit money (yes, profit is not guaranteed, but they can argue that their ability to do business is being unfairly curtailed) while other media are not.

 

And the stations that border states? What if a candidate qualifies in NC, but not in SC? People on the border get the other states channels.

 

You think I'm nitpicking here --- but these are all issues that will have to be addressed.

 

No, I know that this nitpicking would occur. I, personally, don't know what the provisions had to say about that, but I'd presume that they would simply give equal time to all candidates who were ballot qualified in the state with more candidates.

 

But some candidates would get more time under this proposal as they'd have the 90 minutes of another state's time in addition to the 90 minutes of the state in question's time.

 

Why should cable be free of this requirement? Networks might bitch about this, saying that cable companies occupy the same public airwaves.

 

Indeed, which would lead me to believe that it would be required of cable television as well. I'm simply not sure about the rules' provisions, etc. I apologize for not having specifics about that.

 

But, several hundred channels would ALL have to do this? This comes suspiciously close to government-run television and I don't think the Courts would go for that, precedents be damned.

 

But on what grounds would they remove the licenses? The FCC, I don't think, can't MAKE you show anything. If a channel decided to not show the State of the Union, what could the FCC do about it? (not a sarcastic question)

 

I'd presume that the SOTU falls under their public interest requirements on their licensing agreement, and yes, the FCC *does* have the power to revoke those licenses. That's one thing I'm sure about; they're the presiding body in this, and they have the right to revoke the license (and basically kick the channel off the air) if the requirements aren't followed.

 

But if numerous other channels are offering this, couldn't any station argue that NOT doing it is not a major issue?

 

And, again, this gives A LOT of power to the networks and the like and they have their own interests. If candidates have to live and die basically with the networks discussing their views, they might have problems.

 

And THAT is the biggest problem. If soft money is curtailed, the groups can gripe that the networks are slanted against them and THEIR free speech is being impeded.

 

Indeed, and there would be much less of an argument against their rights. However, like I said, this is simply a step in the right direction, not a fix all.

 

I say remove restrictions and demand tight accountability, with the info being released to the public on a daily basis. If a party starts getting lots of donations from one or two people, rest assured, their opposition will bring it up and the candidate will have to explain it away.

 

If they go 90 minutes and there are more than 2 candidates, that would cause scheduling problems.

 

The argument would be, again, that it's not the government's problem. They've got 90 days to show 90 minutes of programming per candidate. Even in the states with the most relaxed ballot qualifications, that'd be an average of 20 minutes advertizing per day. In a 3 hour block, that's hardly crippling (although it does put a dent in their profits).

 

That seems like it would make current campaigns even MORE shallow and reliant on sound-bites. 90 minutes to make one's case to the country is not a lot of time. Heck, Clinton could have never done it as he did tend to go on and on.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

What I don't get is the hatred of Haliburton --- it's not like people are naming MORE capable companies of doing what they're doing in Iraq.

-=Mike

Schlumberger and Bechtel.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Seeing as how there is no fairness doctrine any longer (thank God),

 

You have got to be kidding me, right? The fairness doctrine at least attempted to leave some objectivity in the news. As my earlier poll showed, it appears that any and all news has some spin on it, whether it be politically left or right. I find it amazing that a person who has seemingly ranted on and on about the problems with the media of today would want bias to be a factor.

 

I again suggest reading Eric Alterman's book What Liberal Media for a look at the media as a right-wing entity. It is quite literally the opposite of Bias. Read both, and the truth is probably somewhere in between. Then there's the Jeremy Glick interview, but that's another story.

 

To move from this argument to the political debate, trace the money President Bush has received. Did you notice the nearly $5 million that Lowry Mays, head of Clear Channel Entertainment, gave to Mr. Bush during his election campaign in 2000? Did you miss the Richard Scaife money as well, along with the money he contributes to the Heritage Foundation? It's a circular argument. Both parties are guilty of taking large contributions. Just don't say that the Republicans are innocent; they are just as guilty.

[Justice 0]

What I don't get is the hatred of Haliburton --- it's not like people are naming MORE capable companies of doing what they're doing in Iraq.

                              -=Mike

Schlumberger and Bechtel.

So you are more qualified to choose a reconstruction company than the US Military, eh?

 

*Claps*

 

Haliburton did this job for them in the first Gulf War. Isn't it kind of logically for them to turn back to them to do the same job? And explain to me what control Dick Cheney had in this, or why Haliburton is never allowed to have a government contract again, because I think I missed this.

[Justice 0]

Wildbomb: I think there would be a real question of "What is bias?" because as you showed in your poll, people have VERY different opinions about what the media is biased towards. What doesn't seemed biased towards you may seemed biased towards me. Hell, that would make the FCC a massively powerful politcal tool because it could really threaten channels to be "More patriotic!" or "Be more critical of *Insert Party* so you can look fair!". It's all opinion and it varies so much that you'd have non-stop cases calling just every national news station either a "Liberal Propaganda Center" or a "Right-wing Conspiracy Tool". The two books you mentioned could easily present enough evidence to just about every news agency in big trouble, and it will all depend on the politics of the FCC when it comes down to who is gonna get it and who won't.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Wow, triple post.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

This one's blank, too. Keep going.