On the way to work today,I heard about somthing that,well to tell the truth scares me to death.
Congress has passed and the supreme court has upheld something called the incumbent protection act.(i think this is what it is called)

At any rate it basicaly says that anyone who runs a negative add about a politicion sixty days before an election will face crimminal charges.

There are so many issues here it seems unreal that not only did congress pass it,Bush singed it but the Supreme Court upheld it.Whatever happened to the first ammendment.

Forgive me for not posting a link but I am at work and dont have time to search for it.Please feel free to post one if you find one for me.I wanted to get this out so I could see what you guys thought.

Its starting to feel alot like Orwells 1984 here in the land of the free.

Very scary. Freedom of speech is first and foremost a political right, not a civil right. I don't care what the government does to the civil rights side of free speech but you DO NOT take it away as a political right, since as long as we have a say in politics we have control of our civil rights.

To play the devil's advocate for a moment, It may be high time that some of the brutal (what are known up in Canada as "US-style") ad campaigns need to be stopped.

Sometime it's unclear whether you are watching a politcal ad or "America's Most Wanted".

Actually, it reminds me of Nazi Germany.

I have to agree with Elendrile and Ishmael here in that I think political freedom of speech is of vital important, I am also rememinded of the phrase by Kierkegaard;

People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid.Now, I don't like governmet interference of any sort, and this definately smells of alterior motives, that is certain. But if some of the parties didn't run so called 'smear campaigns' then perhaps it would never have come to this. I think it is pathetic the way some polticial bodies run their 'business' and would appreciate it if the whole thing was absolved alltogether.

Let's just hope that this isn't solely constructed to target the 'little guy', and I fear that may be the case.

I've no doubt that this act is so broad (we already have anti-slander statutes) that criticizing government officials could now be construed as a crime.

This saddens me. So many governments these days are so quickly approaching a political or corporative lead dictatorship that we have little legal control over ourselves. I only think that the best idea is to have nothing to do with the system any more. If everyone refused to take part in it then they no-longer have any authority.

I am allready of the opinion that protests do not work, if anything they make matters worse, but I sincerely hope that this does not spread to literature or speeches on the subject. The last thing any country should do by it's citizens is start arresting or charging political prisoners.

The more I think about this the less it seems aimed at reducing under-handed tactics by politicians themselves and more towards censoring information. Let us hope that it never comes to that.

Well I am having a tough time finding a link to back this up,but I heard it on local public radio station I trust, so for now I will proceed as though this is true.

I think most people would be happy to see the ad campaings clean up,but this is not the way to do it.It would be great if the canidate just sold himself.We do however have slander laws to keep people from just outright lying.

I think the larger issue here is the goverment can now charge you with a crime for what you say and when you say it.Think about the ramifications of that for a while.

I have a feeling that this is a negative spin of the Campaign Finance Reform bill that was passed the U.S. Legislature.

If you are listening to Michael Savage - the man is radical right-wing and anything he says must be interpreted with a very critical eye.

The other source is Rush Limbaugh. He is an excellent orator but is merely a party spokesman.

Well, some of those ads have been quite... explicit. Anyway, critique should not be restrained by the law. Also: what bearing has the 60 days before election period on the moral value of the act? Or the social desirability of it?

Hmmm... I think I know which election someone had on his mind...

You're still going to see negative add campaigns anyway. They just won't say anything derrogatory against their opponent.

Example of campaign ad:

I will do A, but my competitor won't.
I will do B, but my competitor won't.
I will do C, but my competitor won't.

It's a way to get around the system. Instead of mudslinging the other canidate (which is really over the top sometimes) sing the praises of the other canidate and tell what things he's doing that the other one isn't. Instead of insulting your opponent, tell people why they should vote for you instead.

I think this can be good overall, unless the law states that you can't even MENTION your opponent in the ads. I don't know the particulars of the law, so depending on how far it goes would determine my support of it. In a perfect world, you should be able to win an election on your own merits rather than pointing out shortcomings of the opposition.

Blackhawk wrote:
I have a feeling that this is a negative spin of the Campaign Finance Reform bill that was passed the U.S. Legislature Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

The point of the law is to curb soft money spending on political campaigns. Here is how it works: suppose George Bush is told by law he now has limits on how much he can obtain and spend (i don't believe this law applies to this election but go with it). Well, George may decide that he can help the NRA get money and since the NRA isn't covered by the law that restricts George's campaign funds and expenditures the NRA prepares a campaign blitz on behalf of George right before the election. Ditto with other groups who would support whatever candidate for whatever reason.

So, the intent of the law is to curb the money spent in campaigns and thus the influence of donors.

Now, I personally think it is a violation of free speech. However, the stupid comments about Nazis etc. are just that - stupid. Godwin's Law though - you win.

Excellent quotation, Manus. I'm gonna have to use that one. You sure it was Kierkegaard?

Yeah, this is a negative spin on the Campaign Finance Reform Act. I'm completely aghast that the Supreme Court upheld it. I thought it was dead on arrival.

While I recognize what they were trying to stop (the situation exactly as Laches described it), I can't for the life of me figure out how they justify that desire to stop negative campaign ads trumps freedom of speech. It's astouding. I literally do not think that the Supreme Court has done something so outrageous since they forced the states to accept abortion in Casey.

In order to do something like this, they have to claim compelling state interest. What compelling interest do they have? The interest of making the country a nicer place for 60 days? Do they think that anyone who runs a negative campaign ad is automatically going to win? It's not like the other campaign can't come up with a response or paint the other candidate as cruel and unfair.

Some days I just want to up and move to England.