Why PFL has to get back to Hawaii before the Mormons lynch him.

[patfromlogan]

a letter just posted in the Logan Herald Journal:

To the editor:
Many years ago a lawyer from Pennsylvania moved to Utah and seven years later became our senator. At that time, back in 1976, Orin Hatch criticized Sen. Frank Moss’s 18-year tenure in the Senate saying, “What do you call a senator who’s served in office for 18 years? You call him home.” To call Hatch a hypocrite, after “serving” in D.C. for 36 long years (twice as long as Moss!), is not the point of this letter, and it’s not the point of this letter to call him a hypocrite for criticizing current spending when he had NO qualms cutting taxes for the rich while Bush drove the national debt up by $5 trillion.
My point is that today tax-exempt groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS can spend millions of dollars on attack ads without anyone ever knowing who is paying for them. Under the DISCLOSE Act, if a group spends more than $10,000 on political ads in an election cycle, it would identify who is paying. The Democrats, in a effort to be inclusive and fair, included unions specifically — the disclose bill is designed to make the money donated public information, and get rid of dirty secret deals and ad campaigns made in back rooms, hidden from the public.
Hatch wants no one to know who gives money to run ads for him, or any other candidate. Monday, he and the rest of the Republicans ALL voted against the disclose bill (many were in favor: McCain in March warned the lack of disclosure for independent spending would lead to “huge scandals”). Not one had the guts to vote for democracy; they all fell into lock step, mouthing platitudes like Orin Hatch’s, calling the disclosure bill “pathetic,” and DISCLOSE, “one of the most deliberately political pieces of legislation you will ever see.”
While obviously imperfect, politics are concerned with the happiness of the citizens — it seeks to seeks to create, preserve, and reform ruling systems of government. Hatch’s
use of politics as a dirty word describes his political actions, not our ideals of democracy.
There are said to be 17 old men who have all given much more than a million dollars to current election campaigns. Orin Hatch wants to keep them buying our politicians in secret. His politics are filthy; government by the rich, for the rich, made in back rooms with millions of dollars being pocketed, in secret, nothing disclosed, no one the wiser.
As Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the bill’s lead sponsor, said, the current system permits “legalized political money laundering that is a perfect recipe for corruption.” “Hang on to your wallets. Here come the special interests. And you won’t even know who they are.”
Patrick Easterling

Actually we think that they ran Urine Snatch for the senate because he has an amazing likeness to Joe Smith the original cult leader:

[mike321]

PFL,

What is the fascination with putting limits on free speech? Paying for ads is free speech and anonymous speech is a part of speech. Of course, huge money gives an unfair advantage to super wealthy. They can buy expensive radio and tv ads. It's too bad the government does not own the radio and tv spectrum! Then they could allocate tv and radio time to everyone on the ballot equally. Of course, there is a lot more candidates than two on the ballot and all candidates would need to be treated equally. But why would the dems and repubs mind? After all they are completely opposed to each other and would not collaborate to form a political duopoly. Dems are good and repubs are bad or repubs are good and dema are bad or something. It's so confusing!

[patfromlogan]

Free speach is harmed by disclosing who's paying for attack ads?

[ChenPengFi]

This morning:

[mike321]

Free speach is harmed by disclosing who's paying for attack ads?

Of course. Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense and published anonymously. The first amendment forbids "abridging free speech". If I passed a law that required all pamphlets disclose who paid for printing or not be published, free speech is abridged. Also does not fit into any of the legal restrictions on free speech that I can think of.

I would focus on radio frequencies being public property and access laws.

A side note if you can't spend your money on speech, you aren't free. Also I don't think any of this applies I corporations or unions. Those aren't people in my humble opinion.

[patfromlogan]

>80% of PAC $ comes from >200 sources, Thomas Paine is throwing up.

[patfromlogan]

1208 Mokulua Dr. was my home...

[mike321]

>80% of PAC $ comes from >200 sources, Thomas Paine is throwing up.

Check your symbols! Anyway I get your point. Very unfortunate. I don't think many of the founding fathers would be horrified if financial success led to greater political access, but that's another topic. This reform stuff is on shaky free speech ground and all the bills seem designed to maintain the duopoly. The only reform will be to allow one party to latch on to power longer. It may not be the party you want.

[patfromlogan]

Check your symbols! Anyway I get your point. Very unfortunate. I don't think many of the founding fathers would be horrified if financial success led to greater political access, but that's another topic. This reform stuff is on shaky free speech ground and all the bills seem designed to maintain the duopoly. The only reform will be to allow one party to latch on to power longer. It may not be the party you want.

http://scissorsheldon.com/

[mike321]

http://scissorsheldon.com/

Interesting, well free speech and all that. Of course, if he was anonymous he might have missed all of that.