Quote:
Originally posted by - Jesus Christ -
Um no.... Thats an invalid summary. The act is mostly about stopping LARGER companies setting up puppet non-profit groups or using already existing groups that are exempt form the rules to FUNNEL MONEY into advertisments without having to take responsibility for what happens to the money after they hand it over.
It also keeps everyones speech FREE by trying (but failing) to close loopholes that make the freedom no longer free by giving groups with shitloads of money the ability to override the speach of others.
|
These are groups of citizens organizing themselves to push a particular idea, or set of ideals. I see nothing wrong with that. Especially when the only thing we're allowed to listen to otherwise are the campaigners who constantly lie out of their ass. They're allowed to lie in their campaign ads and somehow it's not false advertising. That's a much greater threat to freedom and democracy then a group of citizens wanting to say something about an election, regardless of where their money comes from.
The whole idea of groups that are funded one way or another sounds like it's just a red herring so that we won't pay attention to the real bullshit going on.
Further, funding is not a matter that is addressed in the first ammendment, therefore I don't see how this law can be constitutional.
__________________
Alt Journals, Blogs for Perverts!
Fitness and nutrition writer, and UNIX/Linux Sys Ad in training
"Just as a man who has fallen into a heap of filth ought to seek the great pond of water covered with lotuses, which is near by: even so seek thou for the great deathless lake of Nirvana to wash off the defilement of wrong. If the lake is not sought, it is not the fault of the lake."