Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[WildCat]

no

How do you know? Didn't I just spend over the limit to influence an election?

 

[stilicho]

How do you know? Didn't I just spend over the limit to influence an election?

I'd like to see stokes submit the third-party limits in the UK. I showed that, in Canada, if you as an individual created a $150,001 advertising campaign that said "Harper Sux!" then you would not be able to distribute it during the election cycle. In that way, Canada has much more restricted free speech than the US does.

Unlike stokes, I don't happen to think this makes Canada an easier place for "poor people" or whatnot to have their voices heard. Instead, it makes it more difficult for them unless they submit to the authority of a political party boss (or union head etc).

This is what you've been driving at and why people who don't understand Citizens United should think deeply about its consequences.

 

[stokes234]

How do you know? Didn't I just spend over the limit to influence an election?

The value of your actual contribution isn't over the limit. If someone managed to value your actual online advertising campaign as over the limit then I believe it would be prevented, though i'm not sure how precise you can be with the pricing of online advertising, nor how easy it is to police.

 

[Neally]

Another OWS casualty:

New York City Cafe May Shut Its Doors for Good Due to 'Occupy,' Owner Says

Break eggs...omelet...

 

[Virus]

Occutards squat building owned by Well Fargo, barricade themselves in with furniture and scuffle with police.

http://santacruz.patch.com/articles...members-defending-occupied-bank#video-8581768

How's this for a theory; They ultimately want socialist revolution or some crap but knowing that's not remotely possible they would settle for being bought-off with government largesse like they have in Greece.

 

[stokes234]

I'm Canadian. So it's still "their" and "theirs" but your sense of history might be a little ill-defined. Trade unions in the US wield quite a bit more political power than you might think they do. Unlike here in Canada, their public service unions seem to be a little bit weaker but that's simply a quirk and it appears to be limited to specific states rather than being a broad-brushed rule.

Here's a summary of AFL-CIO campaign spending:

http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/08/08/afl-cio-plans-super-pac-boost-campaign-contributions

In fact, the AFL-CIO has been one of the biggest winners in the Citizens United decision and plans to spend considerable money in the upcoming 2012 US presidential election campaigns and the other ancillary campaigns that go along with an election year.

No I understand that, unions spend alot of money on political campaigning in america, but they lost their identity of being left-wing in the sense that the democratic party isn't actually particularly left-wing, at least not by the standards of european trade unions.

The actual sums you quote just go to show how much money you need behind you in a political campaign to compete with the status quo in america.

 

[WildCat]

The value of your actual contribution isn't over the limit.

Now you're talking contributions instead of expenditures. Which is it, does the limit apply just to contributions or to independent expenditures?

If someone managed to value your actual online advertising campaign as over the limit then I believe it would be prevented, though i'm not sure how precise you can be with the pricing of online advertising, nor how easy it is to police.

Exactly. No one can define ahead of time how this limit is calculated, yet you risk a criminal charge should you exceed it. This has a chilling effect, doesn't it?

 

[stokes234]

I'd like to see stokes submit the third-party limits in the UK. I showed that, in Canada, if you as an individual created a $150,001 advertising campaign that said "Harper Sux!" then you would not be able to distribute it during the election cycle. In that way, Canada has much more restricted free speech than the US does.

We have very different definitions of free speech. You're allowed to say whatever you want by any medium you want, so long as it doesn't cost you money and isn't during an election campaign. I honestly don't see the problem.

Unlike stokes, I don't happen to think this makes Canada an easier place for "poor people" or whatnot to have their voices heard. Instead, it makes it more difficult for them unless they submit to the authority of a political party boss (or union head etc).

Well, I wouldn't describe volunteering for a political party as "submitting to the authority" of the party's boss, rather i'd describe it as taking action to further your political goals in a way that doesn't require you to have much economic power behind you. And when you've got 6 or 7 political parties to choose between, it's easier to find a party to help that actually aligns with your views.

This is what you've been driving at and why people who don't understand Citizens United should think deeply about its consequences.

What do you think the negative consequences for the UK have been? Do you think it's easier or harder to go from a poor to median economic background to become a politician in the UK, or the US?

 

[WildCat]

We have very different definitions of free speech. You're allowed to say whatever you want by any medium you want, so long as it doesn't cost you money and isn't during an election campaign. I honestly don't see the problem.

Hell of a definition you have there. Orwell would be proud!

 

[stokes234]

Now you're talking contributions instead of expenditures. Which is it, does the limit apply just to contributions or to independent expenditures?

It's contributions. If a race has a limit on the price of car you can drive in it, it doesn't matter how expensive the tools you use to build the car are, so long as the value of the car itself doesn't excede the limit.

Exactly. No one can define ahead of time how this limit is calculated, yet you risk a criminal charge should you exceed it. This has a chilling effect, doesn't it?

I don't feel a chill, mainly because online advertising is worth crap all, but also because I like to feel that elections in my country are not being decided by which party has the most money to spend on winning. If that means a few people who tried to buy the election have to go to jail, that's a price i'm willing to pay. But really, ignorance of the law being no defence, if you start spending tens of thousands of pounds on an electoral advertising campaign in the UK and don't declare it to the party you're campaigning for, you're asking for trouble.

 

[stokes234]

Hell of a definition you have there. Orwell would be proud!

If you think that was orwellian, I think you may have misread 1984. You weren't allowed to say whatever you want in public, blog, write whatever you want, spend as much money as you like outside of election campaigns on convincing people of your view, etc etc. I do like to think Orwell would be proud of people arguing against elections being decided by whichever side is the richest, though. That sounds like something he'd agree with.

 

[WildCat]

It's contributions. If a race has a limit on the price of car you can drive in it, it doesn't matter how expensive the tools you use to build the car are, so long as the value of the car itself doesn't excede the limit.

So there's no limits on independent expenditures?

I don't feel a chill, mainly because online advertising is worth crap all, but also because I like to feel that elections in my country are not being decided by which party has the most money to spend on winning. If that means a few people who tried to buy the election have to go to jail, that's a price i'm willing to pay. But really, ignorance of the law being no defence, if you start spending tens of thousands of pounds on an electoral advertising campaign in the UK and don't declare it to the party you're campaigning for, you're asking for trouble.

What if you start a blog and it gets really popular and suddenly your accumulated ad revenue exceeds the limit?

 

[stokes234]

So there's no limits on independent expenditures?

Well, if they aren't translating into actual benefit with a financial value for an electoral campaign, I don't see why there would need to be. If you want to print out your £100 of leaflets using a printer that cost you £8 million, the UK system won't stop you, but it might give you a puzzled glance.

What if you start a blog and it gets really popular and suddenly your accumulated ad revenue exceeds the limit?

I can't see any jury convincting someone in that case, even if it makes it to court.

Interesting debate btw even if you guys are a bit tetchy sometimes, but i'm out for a while, usa politics takes up alot of time to debate in.

 

[Kay]

What do you think the negative consequences for the UK have been? Do you think it's easier or harder to go from a poor to median economic background to become a politician in the UK, or the US?

Well, Reagan's and Clinton's fathers were useless drunks, and Obama grew up without one. Going over the current Republican candidates, only two, ( interestingly the two moderates, Huntsman and Romney), I could really say grew up privileged. Meanwhile, Cameron went to Eton. Can't say more about your other prime ministers, but I'd say our current candidates show that it is definitely possible in the United States.

 

[TjW]

We have very different definitions of free speech. You're allowed to say whatever you want by any medium you want, so long as it doesn't cost you money and isn't during an election campaign. I honestly don't see the problem.

So, if the political campaign is (hypothetically) one to put further limits on your speech, what would your options be?

 

[stilicho]

....

What do you think the negative consequences for the UK have been? Do you think it's easier or harder to go from a poor to median economic background to become a politician in the UK, or the US?

It's absolutely easier to become a successful politician in the USA than it is in either Canada or in the UK. Have you read Michael Moore's Here Comes Trouble? If you haven't then you should. You will find out from one of the most left-wing of all American political commentators just how easy it is to become a successful politician there.

I won't give it away, though. You'd better read it yourself so you can understand.

 

[stilicho]

Well, if they aren't translating into actual benefit with a financial value for an electoral campaign, I don't see why there would need to be. If you want to print out your £100 of leaflets using a printer that cost you £8 million, the UK system won't stop you, but it might give you a puzzled glance.



I can't see any jury convincting someone in that case, even if it makes it to court.

Interesting debate btw even if you guys are a bit tetchy sometimes, but i'm out for a while, usa politics takes up alot of time to debate in.

I'm not American and I personally have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't presented any statistics on the third-party limits in the UK while I have presented them for Canada. I have also presented evidence that, in Canada, there is public money spent on political advertising--something that does not happen in the USA--so my own hard-earned dollars have to pay for political opinions to which I am strenuously opposed.

I think you'd better take a real close look at what's going on in the UK first and then come back and try to argue against American free speech legislation and constitutional guarantees. There's a reason the American model is feared and respected throughout the world.

I am personally not surprised that Americans have largely rejected the "pure" left wing and it goes back to the work of individuals like Samuel Gompers. He was sufficiently astute to realise that the virulent individualism of American culture would simply not mesh well with the hive mentality of Jaures and other European collectivists. It was the legacy of early American labour movement professionals that allowed a so-called right-wing US president, Ronald Reagan, to forge deep ideological ties with the first virulent anti-communist labour movement in Poland.

Here's a week-old report on how lasting those ties have been:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...arsaw-street/2011/11/21/gIQAM21ehN_story.html

Former Polish President and anti-communist leader Lech Walesa speaks during an unveiling ceremony of a statue honoring Ronald Reagan for inspiring Poland’s toppling of communism, in Warsaw, Poland, Monday, Nov. 21, 2011. The photo in the background shows Reagan and Pope John Paul II.

I'm waiting, with bated breath, to see the US start erecting monuments anywhere to Jean Jaures, Leon Trotsky, or Bela Kun.

 

[stilicho]

Well, Reagan's and Clinton's fathers were useless drunks, and Obama grew up without one. Going over the current Republican candidates, only two, ( interestingly the two moderates, Huntsman and Romney), I could really say grew up privileged. Meanwhile, Cameron went to Eton. Can't say more about your other prime ministers, but I'd say our current candidates show that it is definitely possible in the United States.

Stokes might also want to bone up on some history and read Tuchman's The Proud Tower or Olson's Troublesome Young Men. Some really top-notch UK perspectives on power and privilege.

 

[JihadJane]

""""Luntz told attendees that he’s “scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death.” The pollster warned that the movement is “having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.” So the pollster offered some advice for them about how to fight back. Here’s a few snippets of what he said ...:

– Don’t Mention Capitalism

– Empathize With The 99 Percent Protesters

– Don’t Say Bonus

– Don’t Mention The Middle Class Because Americans Don’t Trust Republicans To Defend It

– Don’t Talk About Taxing The Rich


Frank Luntz is no minor pollster. He is considered to be one of the top political communications experts in the world, having provided consulting to many of the world’s top corporations, politicians, and special interest groups. That Luntz is admitting the impact of Occupy Wall Street and the 99 Percent and telling closed-door meetings of Republicans that it frightens him is a huge victory for the movement.""""

'Top GOP Strategist Admits He’s ‘Scared’ Of Occupy Wall Street Because It’s ‘Having An Impact’'

 

[Graham2001]

One wonders what's going to happen to the money donated to the OWS, if there is any justice it should be given to the towns affected so they can pay for the clean up...