Enlil said:

You must really be a tyrant at home if everything on your television is what you're actively seeking. Most households have a more compromising policy.

Everything on television is put in front of at least two people who aren't actively seeking it

---

psyconaught said:

not if you accidentally run across his show while channel surfing. You then ingest the material, even if its for a short amount of time, while not actively seeking it. You make the assumption that every piece of media ever is intentionally consumed.

---

Quote:

If political content is in a medium where it's not generally sought, or if a 3rd party puts political content in a medium where it is generally sought, then the content is subject to individual contribution limits.

---

rxb said:

what you are saying if i understand you

if you watch rush limbaugh and rush says "vote against obama"

its fine. no rules. freesome of speech applies

---

rxb said:

if someone pays him to say "vote against obama" its subject to rules

---

rxb said:

if the station puts up a 30 minute ad to ross perot (the greatest candidate we ever had).,, its freedom of speech...

---

rxb said:

if ross perot pays to have a 30 minute show (also free)

---

rxb said:

if glen beck pays to have a 30 minute show on why obama is the best guy for the job, and in this 30 minute show someone pays to have an ad for bill clinton.... the rules apply only to the bill clinton side.

---

rxb said:

if you call an ad a show and its long... its up to the content provider of the show.

etc etc.

---

psyconaught said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

How about this?

Quote:

If political content is in a medium where it's not generally sought, or if a 3rd party puts political content in a medium where it is generally sought, then the content is subject to individual contribution limits.

---

---

The problem with all of these statements so far is that they're so god damn subjective. Just a handful of posters on this board have been able to throw dozens of scenarios at you that circumnavigate the rules you've been putting forth. Now extrapolate that to 300+ million people.

---

Quote:

If political content is in a medium where it's not generally sought

---

psyconaught said:

Quote:

If political content is in a medium where it's not generally sought

---

So political content is ONLY allowed in specific pre-approved political publications now? Are comedy shows not allowed to comment on current political events if they usually don't do that? What about musicians? Can John Mayer give his support to Hillary Clinton while on stage in between songs? Does the cost of putting on the show fall under the contribution limits? Your rules are so arbitrary they limit almost all political speech.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

psyconaught said:

Quote:

If political content is in a medium where it's not generally sought

---

So political content is ONLY allowed in specific pre-approved political publications now? Are comedy shows not allowed to comment on current political events if they usually don't do that? What about musicians? Can John Mayer give his support to Hillary Clinton while on stage in between songs? Does the cost of putting on the show fall under the contribution limits? Your rules are so arbitrary they limit almost all political speech.

---

You forgot to read the last part - "then the content is subject to individual contribution limits."

Comedians can freely tell jokes if they're not paying someone to tell them, or if a 3rd party isn't paying to dictate the content.

---

BoldAsLove said:

Comedians pay to put on the show. They pay the venue, their staff, equipment costs, advertising costs, etc. Does that not count towards the individual contribution limit?

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

BoldAsLove said:

Comedians pay to put on the show. They pay the venue, their staff, equipment costs, advertising costs, etc. Does that not count towards the individual contribution limit?

---

I've known many comedians, and not one ever paid to put on a show.  They get paid to do a routine.

And as I said above "Comedians can freely tell jokes if they're not paying someone to tell them"

---

BoldAsLove said:

What is a medium where political content is not sought? People use the internet, print, television, and radio to seek political content all the time.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

BoldAsLove said:

What is a medium where political content is not sought? People use the internet, print, television, and radio to seek political content all the time.

---

Perhaps medium is too general a word.  A more specific word should work (something that describes a "basketball game" rather than just "television".)

---

Enlil said:

At this point, you've basically created a "I'll know it when I see it" test that leaves so much discretion to the courts.  Discretion leads to disparity and discrimination...always has...always will.

The more general the test is, the more it will be subject to abuse by the ones who can afford the most lawyers.

---

BoldAsLove said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Perhaps medium is too general a word.  A more specific word should work (something that describes a "basketball game" rather than just "television".)

---

That's the whole point of this thread, I suppose. But, at the moment, I'm not sure what word or phrase would concisely describe what you are trying to describe.

---