Meet the New Boss: McCain-Feingold
by David BossieIt is unnecessary for me to tell any of you reading this that the left has a stranglehold over both Hollywood and the mainstream media. It is axiomatic in today’s news world dominated by the likes of Keith Olbermann and The New York Times that the “news” is delivered to your doorstep with a leftward slant.
What are less well understood, however, are the lengths to which the government has gone to protect the left’s monopoly during the last decade and the complicity of the news media in that endeavor. The recent confrontation between General Electric CEO Jeffery Immelt and an O’Reilly Factor producer at GE’s shareholder meeting highlighted the nexus between government and the left-leaning media for all to see.
For decades, the major broadcasting corporations and newspapers were the gatekeepers of the national political discourse in this country because the enormous infrastructure costs associated with setting up a news organization and a distribution network were prohibitive. If you were a candidate, incumbent, or someone with a cause, you had to go hat-in-hand to the editors of these organizations asking them to take an interest in you or your cause. If they accepted you, national attention followed, but if you were rejected by the media elites, you languished in anonymity. In the last five or ten years, however, the cost of entry declined precipitously due to the proliferation of the internet, and the old guard found its cherished position atop the hierarchy being threatened by smaller upstart organizations.
The old guard, acting to protect their status as the arbiters of information and ideas, collaborated with their equally entrenched allies in Congress and passed a law that became known as the McCain-Feingold Act. The ostensible goal of McCain-Feingold was to limit the amount of money that flows into political campaigns in this country. Two presidential elections later, I think that we can all agree that it was singularly ineffective in achieving that goal. What McCain-Feingold did very effectively, on the other hand, was to reinforce the monopoly that the traditionally dominant news corporations held over the political discourse in this country.
The McCain-Feingold Act protects the dominance of traditional news organizations through an unblinkingly hypocritical provision of the law called the “media exemption.” You see, McCain-Feingold prohibits any corporation from funding any portion of what’s called an “electioneering communication,” which includes any radio or television broadcast that reaches a certain number of people close to an election and advocates the election or defeat of a federal candidate. For instance, the Federal Election Commission muzzled my organization, Citizens United, during the last election when we wanted to air our documentary, Hillary The Movie, simply because 0.3% of the film’s budget came from mom-and-pop “corporations.” The “media exemption,” on the other hand, allowed Keith Olbermann’s 100% corporate financed television program to run an hour of pro-Obama or anti-McCain programming every single night.
Why was Olbermann treated differently? Because the McCain-Feingold “media exemption” specifically carved out a niche for the old guard leftist media corporations like General Electric’s MSNBC or the New York Times Company to do and say what they please without ramification, despite the fact that everything they do is financed by a corporate treasury. The only justification for giving these particular corporations a free pass is because they are part of the entrenched media establishment and they were easier to co-opt than to fight when the law was written. The result is that if you or I ran a television ad close to an election using one dollar of corporate funding that merely repeated The New York Times’ editorial endorsement of a candidate, we could be put in jail.
This stunning hypocrisy has been going on for years now, and the true ramifications are only now coming to light. For instance, General Electric stands to profit to the tune of billions of dollars if President Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal becomes law, as reported on the O’Reilly Factor. What’s next, a government bailout of the newspapers? Don’t bet against it: an Obama appointee has proposed bailing out the nearly bankrupt newspaper industry.






Subscribe via RSS
62 Comments
Well, maybe McCain will join Specter in jumping ship. That way Democrats wouldn't have to wait for the results of the fixed Franken/Coleman race to get a filibuster-proof Senate. And it would allow for a much faster dismantling of the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment.
I still lay a lot blame for this bill at the feet of President Bush, he should have veto it, instead of believing the Supreme court would overturn it.
Where does Fox News fit into your ridiculous diatribe? Without the media exemption, they would not be allowed to report on the elections. How would that sit with the conservative base? Do you ever think your arguments through to the logical conclusion?
FOX News is exempt, because FOX is a National Media Network. The article talks about smaller-based new media, but then you have no logic for basic human understanding since you call yourself antifascist and have no clue that you're arguing FOR government control.
PIE?
If McCain jump ship, then he'll go from Maverick for Benedict, and would ruin his daughter's meaker political career.
Auntie, you seem to think about Fox News way too much. At least more than us right wingers do. Also you talk about Bossie not thinking his arguments through, and yet you call his article a "ridiculous diatribe," and yet you don't really cite any examples from the article. You just inject your own words into it.
Also, did someone just say PIE a few minutes ago. Boy I'm hungry.
If McCain goes, that leaves Snowe and Collins all by their lonesome selves! How will those two girls survive? (Hopefully, they will not.)
Oh for the love of Mike Auntie, can't you just shut up for FIVE minutes? You're ALWAYS wrong! Proven so, day after day, post after post. You're just NOT amusing any more. Please for your own mental safely STOP writing your crap.
You NEVER answer a question, you take your bile straight out of the "communist manifesto" hand book and history has PROVED you wrong since 1917. You're not even worth laughing at anymore. Pathetic, you're just sad and pathetic and small. You've committed the worst crime a human can do…you take yourself far to far seriously. You are not that important really…sorry….well, no I'm not either.
And you can't cook…so just what good are you, besides become the poster girl for the feeble minded?
Not Over.
Not Over.
One of those things high on my list of disastrous mistakes Bush made in office. It comes under the general rubric of "Bush Couldn't Find His Veto Pen." Bush made two excellent choices for the Supreme Court bench, but I'm not sure he really understood. We almost didn't get Alito because of Bush's cronyism–to wit, Harriet Miers. She would have been Souter Lite.
With all those beautiful trees you have in Maine, you will know what I mean when I say that we're pruning the fruit trees. They look sad and naked at first, but then they bloom and produce their fruit. We are now in the pruning process, and some of the old rotten fruit has already fallen off.
McCain himself would just get moved to the back bench, but daughter dearest is a made-to-order Democrat. They'll love her. As a Republican, she doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
MSNBC is a national media network as well. I don't think you understand the topic.
The OP was not arguing that the major media outlets should have their political speech restricted before elections. He was arguing that his smaller non-major media outlet should not have been sensored either. The article was about the hypocrisy in that major media can still effectively campaign for a candidate, but no one else can.
to antifacist: The type of ignorance your comment displays is what has always allowed fascism to flourish. If your an honest person who is just uninformed you really should do a lot more reading and even more thinking. If you know Obama's policies and your okay with them read "The Road to Serfdom" written about 50 years ago, it applies still today. In this book you'll read about what liberals (or those that call themselves liberals today) really are. Another thing Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini were all Socialists. If this book has no impression you, you're one of 2 things a "Useful Idiot" perhaps still some hope or a "Marxist" you're a lost cause, not worth the effort I've already taken.
It looks like I touched a nerve…see below girlie.
Not Over.
Ahem, you are the moron that wants to treat Fox differently duh. And btw, the poster is correct. You seem very fascist for a guy with the label anti-fascist. I think you must mean profascist which really fits your mental retardation quite well.
Auntie is so misunderstood. Anyone with a -85 rating must be Olbermann's waterboy. Now fetch me wedge of apricot pie.
If the Thumbs of Justice were actually working correctly he'd be in negative triple digits by now for sure.
Mmm pie, I'm thinking today is a chocolate creme day, what do you say Auntie?
Yeah but some, and I mean a weird subset, of Republicans I know consider her and people like her to be the "future of the party" to which I respond,"Yeah the Democrat party."
I'll make it simple. FOX AND MSNBC ARE MSM's. FOX is much less partisan, to put it mildly. The topic is about smaller new media VS MSM under McCain-Feingold.
I read the Wall Street Journal for financial information. For political opinion, I look elsewhere, as I suspect most of us do.
Repost:
There is nothing in your angry rambling that proves me wrong.
(Apparently baddaddy has an administrator buddy that keeps deleting my responses)
Well folks, we've actually had 20 years of Democrat control, 2-Bush's and Clinton. It's going to take a long while to dig out from under the Progressive pile of crap that has landed on us now. I'm afraid that even if a party (GOP replacement?) were to emerge and take control of one house of Congress in 2010 that we would still be in major trouble.
I'm liking this idea of the States demanding a Constitutional Convention to repeal the 16th Amendment, which would cut off Federal Funding and essentialy curtail their Federal Power, and with it the MSM's dominance. I think, if faced with that, the people now destroying the Federal Government might take a different attitude.
"angry rambling"
You've even got THAT wrong Auntie Mime. I'm just a little p!ssed of at your typical commie view point. The same view point that's responsible for the 100,000,000 murders in your Komrades name since 1917.
You want to see "angry" check this out. Now THAT'S angry ➠ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soqsfHcc11E
As compared to this unmanageable "mob"! Here. ➠ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2Ai0KB_cJw
But, being the simpleton you've strived at being your entire sick and twisted life, I doubt you'll be able to see any difference between the two.
"(Apparently baddaddy has an administrator buddy that keeps deleting my responses)"
Oh, if were only true big mouth. I'd would have had the "hammer" down on you and your bile filled mouth long ago.
Not Over.
Lawhawk, that is how I feel the Party is right now. In the pruning process. It should get stronger with all the dead wood gone. If Snowe, who is next up, has anyone who is a decent conservative campaign against her in the primary, she's going to be in for the run of her life. At least as far as Republicans are concerned. Maine is run by Dumbokrauts and both of those girls get considerable support from the other side.
However, we also have a large problem with environazis or what we call watermelons (green on the outside but bright red inside) in this state as well who don't want to prune trees or thin them so new undergrowth can spring forth. Figuratively and literally. Maine's a beautiful state, but it's a very liberal state that supports welfare abuse and taxpayer abuse. It's really too bad.
MSNBC is a "National Media Network" just the same as FOX News. Even if one believes that a global conglomerate like GE is somehow leftist in nature, you certainly must realize that Ruport Murdoch uses every single branch of his media empire to empower conservative and/or Republicans. Just as Keith Olberman is allowed to point out the war crimes of Bush and Cheney, there are people like Hannity and O'Reilly that are allowed to go on TV supporting torture every day.
Both sides have their spokesmen on TV during the elections and arguably the Republican talking heads had far more viewers than the Democrats.
This article's author did not use effective logic or reasoning in making his case.
And by the way, don't waste your time telling me that I'm a pinko liberal, because I am a REAL conservative/libertarian that would like to see a huge reduction in our federal government. Republicans like Reagan and the Bushes spent more money and had bigger deficits than the Democrat Clinton. The party isn't conservative at all any more, they just want to redistribute wealth in a different manner.
You are a classy guy.
And he doesn't want to treat Fox differently, he is just pointing out that its silly to pretend that only the Democrats were allowed to air their opinions during the election when the Wall Street Journal and Hannity and O'Reilly were all very prominent voices lending their help and support to every Republican that they could.
Wow. They really resort to censorship here when you make a simple point?
How about a little honest debate?
Or do you really prefer to sit together in packs and froth at the mouth over every little thing that Obama does. (Recent Drudge Headline: $450 shoes for Michelle!).
There are real issues that need to be discussed and Glenn Beck is frothing over the song choices on Obamas iPod gift.
I like the idea of a 3rd party that concentrates on being fiscally conservative as its main focus. I'd also like to see the federal government prohibited from bribing states by withholding money when the state doesn't pass certain laws it wants to pass.
I don't think it is possible to get votes to repeal the 16th Amendment, nor do I think we should. There needs to be a federal government, but just one with a much smaller size and scope.
Then why did he only mention Olbermann and MSNBC? He should have been just as indignant with Ruport Murdoch and how he used his entire media empire to campaign for right wing interests across the globe.
McCain-Fiengold isn't great, but I do think we should limit the amount of money that can come into a campaign from a single or corporate source. Billionaires shouldn't be allowed to buy elections.
The devil is of course in the details.
"Billionaires shouldn't be allowed to buy elections."
Like George Soros? Although I will give you he's the devil.
I like listening to what my friends say. So I can smack them when they're wrong.
Mr. Jack,
About 3 weeks ago someone broke the “IntenseDebate” software. (I blame the vast “right wing radical extremist” crowd myself, those ba$tards).
Everyone posting here should have at least another 100%, plus or minus, in their "p" listing.
That would made Auntie Mime' and simkatu at, -170p and -146p respectively.
Kind of sez it all…doesn’t it?
Not Over.
I agree. This is W's biggest mistake in office, even if you believe the Iraq war was unjustified. This law has done more and will continue to do more to damage our constitutional rights than any bill passed up to now. Any judge who wants a precedent for ignoring the constitution has one. The first amendment may as well say, "The Congress shall pass no law restricting the right of free speech unless they really want to. then they can."
I don't understand W's rationale in signing the bill. If he truly thought the bill was unconstitutional, then he was just passing the buck to SCOTUS and ignoring his responsibility to veto it. If he didn't believe SCOTUS would overturn it, then he lied.
You're a radical who is more suited on the left, but I digress. You missed the point of the article like a standard issue leftist.
The alternative media, to be sure, is a thorn in the side of the Democrats, but more Christian churches need to step up and stand up for what’s right. Their Bible instructs them to.
Hey, Shamutu or whatever your name is, there's a rule here. You must provide pie. Auntie Fascist doesn't get anything from us, because she hasn't provided the pie. Same goes for you. No pie, no talky.
Because Auntie doesn't do honest debate. How bout you?
Olbermann the example he used to make to support his point. Besides, I have yet to hear anyone on Fox show disrespect toward Barry, nor heard any tingling feelings toward Bush.
Dunno who screwed up Intense Debate and made it all collapsed threads. I think it is a pain in the rear. McCain-Feingold was yet another one of Johnny Mac's attempt to build bridges with his buddies on the left. Problem is, like all of his dealing, he gets nothing for our side. Or rather, his supposed side. Being partisan means never pulling anyone to the right, but always agreeing to go to the left.
How do we get McCain to follow in Arlen's footsteps? It would be the best thing since Specter left for the left. This guy is a little too RINO for my taste and I can't wait for him to admit to being a Demorat. Just leave, John, get over your identity crisis and do all conservatives a big favor. Don't the lefties need another War Hero to replace Murtha?
The way to get McCain out of the party is the same way Specter was bumped, a strong conservative primary challenger
Is that Ruport from Newport? Or did you mean RuPaul? Saying that you are a conservative is just a ruse to get in your goofy views, often supporting Auntie. And you are right. Billionaires shouldn't be allowed to buy elections, directly or indirectly, such as Soros did with the last one. Killing free speech only made it easier for him. Now you and Auntie should go off and have sex with each other, and learn how to make pie.
I'm all for repealing the 16th Amendment, but be cautious about calling for a Constitutional Convention. Once gathered, a Convention has the right to do anything it pleases, not just the original topic. For over fifty years, historians and political scientists have from time to time pulled a trick that should frighten anyone considering a Constitutional Convention. When proposed out of context, and in modern language as part of a large shopping list of "suggestions," students and the general public always choose to reject the 1st, 5th and 6th Amendments, sometimes by large margins. Remember that a Constitutional Convention today would not be comprised of people of the caliber of the Founding Fathers. Better to risk the traditional means of amending the Constitution, and perhaps continue to live with the 16th Amendment than to risk losing three of our most valuable basic rights.
For a so-called conservative, you sure have a strange view of history and economics. I think we had a federal government before the sixteenth amendment, didn't we? The sixteenth amendment is the source of the bloated national government. Using "withholding," the national government came up with the spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down. It makes the average guy think he is paying much less than he really is because it is taken in smaller bites. It also allows the national government to give "refunds" of "excess taxes" at the end of the year without people noticing someone has been using their money all year without paying interest on it. If the national government loses this card trick, it has to go to direct taxes such as sales taxes and excise taxes, which are more apparent and immediate so they are hard to hide. And doing hiding it as value-added like the Europeans won't fly here. And most dangerous of all for you liberals is that it cannot be used for class warfare since everyone pays exactly the same percentage of tax as everyone else. If you do not understand how that works, just try to figure out you would identify people by their wealth each time a sale was made so you could determine which tax rate you will charge them. Income taxes are not necessary if the national government taxes only to pay for those things the constitution says it is specifically entitled to do.
And how long do you think Americans would stand for sixty percent of customers paying twenty to fifty percent tax, while forty percent of customers not only pay no tax, but get money back on each purchase?
A real conservative would know that only the government can censor. But websites which are privately owned and operated can simply decide to cut off nutbags who are not contributing anything to the discussion. Your bed buddy's post showed up anyway. So quit your bitching, and admit you are not a conservative of any kind.
You are a pinko liberal, and an ignorant one too.
[...] Meet the New Boss: McCain-Feingold – David Bossie [...]
Billionaires shouldnt be allowed to buy elections? I guess simkatu forgot how much money and influence Billionaire George Soros and others have exerted on the election process, particularly this last election cycle. You lose all credibility with lines like that, simkatu. See, clever people with lots of money can find a way around the law. I say let free speech reign. That way you hear all sides and get to decide for yourself in the market place of ideas.
I want my pie, Simkatu.
I quite like that! For all the good it has done, them being Democrats and all, I've written my NM congress-critters with that suggestion. The Fair Tax sounds like a very good idea indeed.
[...] in case you ever doubted… 2009 May 3 by cmblake6 This is from but one of the folks in Wholeyweird. As regards government support of, and control of, what goes on the alphabet station news. I highly [...]
You are correct, the dominant federal government was a direct result of Lincoln's policies and the outcome of the War Between the States. But the nanny state federal government was also a direct result of the progressives of the early 20th Century, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson and FDR. They intended to remove all power from the individual States, and to restrict the people's liberty by putting the Federal government into all our lives on a daily basis. No, I'm not a conservative, more a libertarian, but more true to the original intent of libertarianism. And you are correct, income taxes are not necessary if we can force the people who run the federal government to return to Constitutional principles.
Calling a Constitutional Convention might not be as risky as it sounds. Anything that comes out of such a Convention still has to be approved by three fourths of the States. The "public" doesn't have much say in it, as it doesn't come to a popular vote.
Merely pointing out the dangerous possibility. And remember, the states are represented by people who will go with what they think is popular rather than what they know is right.
No. I'm a person that believes the government shouldn't interfere in the private lives of individuals, except in the most extreme circumstances. I am truly for personal responsibility and freedom. Unlike many posers in the Republican party that profess to be for Liberty and Freedom, I am one that actually believes in it.
And you can even read your coveted NewsMax and discover that GW Bush (inflation adjusted) increased spending by 109% during his term compared to Clinton's 19% increase in spending.
Even Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have commented on how GW Bush was a spend-a-holic.
Just because Bush was an idiot doesn't mean I'm a "pinko" to point it out.
You are out of your mind or stupid. I didn't suggest that censorship here was illegal or against the 1st amendment. Of course this is a privately owned site that is free to control its content however it wishes. I'm just suggesting that censorship of submitted content that is apparently just argumentative in nature (and not pornographic or hate speech) is a bad idea that should be reconsidered.
And censorship can be applied by anyone that has control of a location or media, not just a government.
That is a libertarian ideal.
Yes. Just like George Soros or Warren Buffet or anybody else with a billion dollars.
Again you are under the mistaken impression that I am on the left. I criticize Bush because he was a gigantic spender that more than doubled government spending during his time in office.
Just because people criticize the stupidity of GW Bush doesn't mean they are pinkos. If anything Bush and his pappy are pinkos with all their "compassionate conservatism" entitlement programs.
I don't forgot how Soros affects the elections. I think it is a detriment to free elections to allow only a select few billionaires make all the decisions on who gets to say what in the mass media. Since these industries are now controlled by only a few individuals (either on the left or right) it makes it difficult for opposing voices to be heard at all.
There is no choice when we let 4 billionaires make all the decisions on who gets to be on TV or in the paper.
If you want pie, then eat your own. I don't have it.
"Income taxes are not necessary if the national government taxes only to pay for those things the constitution says it is specifically entitled to do."
Which might be true. I'd like to see how we could maintain the current defense budget without some sort of national taxation based at least partially on how much each individual is able to contribute.
Is it fair to just make everyone contribute a set amount (like $8000/yr) regardless of income? Is it fair to make everyone contribute a certain percentage (without any deductions) regardless of income?
If you notice I object to the federal government using its power to control the states. The feds were given very limited powers in the Constitution and they should stick to meddling in those areas.
And a VAT does not mean "everyone pays exactly the same percentage of tax as everyone else."" It's a regressive tax where poor people spend a much larger percentage of their income on taxes than rich people do. It's because poor people end up spending all their income each year, subjecting it all too a VAT, whereas wealthy people can end up paying little or nothing on their income if they decide not to spend their money on anything in a particular year. (Most people that make $100 million a year don't actually spend that much money each other).
I don't object to a VAT as one possible alternative, but I don't think its the only solution or best solution for funding the fed.
[...] which would have revived the power of major broadcasting corporations and newspapers to act as information gatekeepers during federal elections — made McCain the establishment media’s favorite Republican [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.