Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

BoldAsLove said:

It appears that I'm still not sure how you're defining actively seeking then. If I want to watch something, and choose to watch it over literally anything else that I could be doing, why am I not actively seeking that content?

---

In this example, you absolutely WOULD be actively seeking that content.  But if an advertisement interrupts your program, then you're not actively seeking it.

---

Quote:

BoldAsLove said:

The majority of people are there to see the show, not hear a political statement. How is that any different than a majority of people wanting to watch a TV show and not wanting to hear a political statement?

---

TV shows can make political statements too, as long as a majority of viewers are actively seeking to watch that program.  What they can't do is get paid by a 3rd party for political content.

---

BoldAsLove said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

BoldAsLove said:

I, for one, don't see how you can limit individual spending without infringing upon 1st amendment rights and making it easier to corrupt the government and silence dissent. But I'd be quite happy to be proven wrong.

---

You and Enlil say this, but neither of you say why.  How does limiting political spending make it easier to corrupt the Government?  How does it silence dissent?  I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like examples of how that would happen.

---

Defining a situation in which it is okay to limit political speech, in my mind, is opening the door to allowing people to be silenced. Especially if that definition is vague and not objective. The problem is not limiting political spending, the problem is creating a situation in which it is acceptable to prevent someone from exercising their first amendment rights.

---

BoldAsLove said:

Of course not, but I've yet to see a proposal from you that would have the effect of limiting political spending without infringing upon first amendment rights.

---

BoldAsLove said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

In this example, you absolutely WOULD be actively seeking that content.  But if an advertisement interrupts your program, then you're not actively seeking it.

---

What's the distinction? If I want to watch the ad and choose to watch the ad, instead of doing literally anything else, then how am I not actively seeking it?

---

Bigbadwooof said:

BoldAsLove said:

Of course not, but I've yet to see a proposal from you that would have the effect of limiting political spending without infringing upon first amendment rights.

---

Well, if you consider limiting political spending to be infringing upon the first amendment, then of course you haven't heard an example of limiting spending that doesn't infringe upon your understanding of the first amendment.

Your problem is with limiting political spending, I believe, not our method of doing so.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

BoldAsLove said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

In this example, you absolutely WOULD be actively seeking that content.  But if an advertisement interrupts your program, then you're not actively seeking it.

---

What's the distinction? If I want to watch the ad and choose to watch the ad, instead of doing literally anything else, then how am I not actively seeking it?

---

Because you weren't seeking out the ad.  It just came on, whether you wanted to watch it or not (you weren't seeking it).

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Cognitive_Shift said:

I haven't seen anyone make a solid claim of what's political speech and what's not, because it's nearly impossible to do so.

---

That was in the OP of theWhat is a Political Ad? thread.

Quote:

Political content is that which provides an opinion on people running for office, people in Government, and/or Government policy.

---

It's a first attempt at a definition, and we haven't really looked very closely at it yet.

---

BoldAsLove said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Because you weren't seeking out the ad.  It just came on, whether you wanted to watch it or not (you weren't seeking it).

---

Who says I wasn't? Is someone monitoring my actions to decide what I'm actively seeking?

---

It's kind of a stretch to say you were seeking a political ad that happened to pop up during a show you were watching, but even if you were, isn't it's safe to say a majority were not?

BoldAsLove said:

The same argument can be made that if I watch the Simpsons and an episode of South Park comes on afterwards that I didn't actively seek to watch South Park, I just watched it because it came one.

---

It's not the same though.  Because once a new program starts, you're no longer tied to the channel you were watching to see the content you were originally seeking.

BoldAsLove said:

Regardless, my point with all of this is just to say that these interpretations that you're offering are not included in your definition. I feel like my interpretation of what actively seeking means is just as valid as yours, and because it isn't clear from the text, any interpretation is useable. This is why a more clear and objective way of defining a political advertisement is needed.

---

I get what you're saying, but I think in most cases people are only considering bits and pieces of the definition, or making up definitions (not actively seeking is not even close to being “forced to watch”).

BoldAsLove said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Anyone can say anything they like in their own program, as long as they're not getting paid by a 3rd party to say it.

---

Okay, that makes more sense now. However, once again, I do not think your definition conveys that at all (apologies if this is not the most recent iteration). All these discussions we have about interpretation have to be expressed in the text so that it isn't open to as much interpretation.

"If a political statement is put in front of people, a majority of whom are actively seeking it, then it is not subject to individual contribution limits, unless a 3rd party pays to dictate the content."

Per this definition, as long as a majority of the crowd are not there to hear a political statement then it would be subject to individual contribution limits.

---

I agree with you on this - the current definition could be interpreted both ways.  I'll think about a modification tomorrow, or you can suggest something if you like.

BoldAsLove said:

Opinion doesn't go far enough, IMO. If a statement simply states facts, with no opinion, it could still clearly be an ad. For a quick example, an ad that simply states that Obama cut the deficit in half would clearly support Obama, despite only stating a fact and offering no opinions on the matter.

---

Another good point.  This was the first we’ve talked about “political content”, so I expect it will go through a few iterations. 

Quote:

If a political statement is put in front of people, a majority of whom aren’t actively seeking it, then the statement is subject to individual contribution limits.  If it is part of a publication or program that a majority of people are actively seeking, then it is not subject to individual contribution limits, unless a 3rd party pays to insert or dictate content.

---

Enlil said:

Here are some specific problems of your test that others have mentioned and you can't seem to accept:

1. It holds the speaker responsible for divining whether the audience will "actively seek" the content
2. It requires accurately measuring how many people a message is put in front of, and how many of those are actively seeking that content.

---

Enlil said:

3. You've been unable to clearly define "actively seeking"
4. You've been unable to clearly define "put in front of people"

---

Enlil said:

Those are just a few of the construction problems with the test.  That doesn't even begin to deal with the breadth of the test.  Your test would apply the contribution limit to political content in:

1. Any web page
2. Anyone's speech, whether private or public.
3. any shirt someone is wearing or displaying
4. any bumper sticker
5. all newspaper content, including editorials and comics
6. All magazine content
7. All television content
8. All motion picture content
9. All statement by candidates themselves

There is almost no political content that wouldn't be subject to the limitation

---

Enlil said:

depending on your limit, it would be possible to convict any reasonably politically active person of reaching that limit.

---

Quote:

Absolutely.  As most of us believe it should.

---

Quote:

it's sad that some people want to allow the wealthy to corrupt the Government further against the rest of us.

---