Ah yes, the DMCA. One of the monumental screw-ups of legislative history. Wait, weren't we discussing campaign finance reform?
Actually, we were discussing politician's reasons for opposing McCain-Feingold. You seemed to imply that it was all about their devotion to the Constitution. It seems perfectly reasonable to point out the great concern said politicians have shown to First Amendment issues, and how much this sort of opposition has to do with political expediency. It also seems relevant to point out that the same politicians who now cry free-speech were perfectly happy to pass a bill with more restrictive wording, in an example of their great respect for the mandates of the Constitution.
Furthermore, if there is so much information out there regarding attempted "squashing" by anyone, point me to it. After you cite it. I won't do your research for you.
The bill has an enormous amount of opposition, and a lot of people-- including our president's administration-- have sought to weaken or discard it. It ain't exactly the stuff of conspiracy theories. It's certainly no secret that this bill has been killed before (it happened recently), was in danger of being filibustered, and was nearly killed through parliamentary manipulations. Either you're genuinely ignorant of this (which says a lot more about your understanding of the issue than anything else) or you're just being difficult. (Now, if I told you that McCain-Feingold was, say, the result of a Japanese conspiracy to control our political system, it'd be reasonable to demand some links.)
Let me get this straight:
* I think that "Campaign Finance Reform" only succeeds in taking power away from the people and horribly infringes the First Amendment.
* " ...there are a lot of people out there who honestly do not think that power should be "returned" to the people, if it means they'll have less of it."
I didn't actually say anything about your motivations. It's no great secret that there are influencial people in DC who have made an industry out of purchasing measures that wouldn't stand a chance in an uncorrupted gov't. This legislation hurts them in a number of ways, and despite the certainty that the constitutionally questionable bits will be stripped, they promote the idea that all of M-F is bad. Lots of people buy it. The implication that you're actually one of those people is entirely yours.
* By criticizing this bill I am aiding those who seek to keep the power for themselves?
A major thrust of the CFR opponents' strategy is to tar the entire bill as part and parcel with its violations. Let's face it. The bill is already law. The only way that's going to change is a) the court nullifying the speech-inhibiting portions, or b) new legislation counteracting the old. I don't have any problem with new legislation that corrects the flaws in M-F, but I do think we need to isolate those flaws and be specific about what it is we want to fix. Tarring the whole bill helps make it more likely that said corrections will also weaken or wipe out the decent provisions of M-F, and that's a terrible shame, because they are so damned important.
(Since I brought up the DMCA, I'd like to point out that I feel the vast majority entire piece of legislation is unnecessary, and potentially harmful to us, with little redeeming value-- which is why I feel free to attack the thing by name. This despite the fact that there's essentially no chance that the bulk of the bill will ever be repealed.)
[ Parent ]