|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Quote:
RAW STORY
Published: Monday December 11, 2006
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and other so-called "527" nonpartisan groups are soon likely to face significant fines from the Federal Election Commission, according to a story in today's edition of Roll Call.
America Coming Together, a more Democrat-leaning group, and others were cited in an article written by Matthew Murray as facing fines after two years of FEC scrutiny. During the 2004 presidential election, complaints had been filed against the groups for violating campaign finance laws. Texans for Truth, Progress for America Voter Fund, Leadership Forum, the Media Fund, the Joint Victory Campaign, Economic Freedom Fund and Majority Action were other groups confirmed to be likely targets of fines for their conduct in 2004.
One observer of the process commented to Roll Call that fines were unlikely unless major infractions were alleged to have occurred, as the FEC's current philosophy emphasizes the pursuit of "big fish."
The full article is accessible to Roll Call subscribers at the newspaper's website. An excerpt is included below.
...
RAW
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,353
Award-Winning Author 10000+ posts
|
|
Award-Winning Author 10000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,353 |
Good. I thought many of those ads, especially the Swift Boat ones, to be absolutely shameful.
Knutreturns said: Spoken like the true Greatest RDCW Champ!
All hail King Snarf!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
King Snarf said:
Good. I thought many of those ads, especially the Swift Boat ones, to be absolutely shameful.
Absolutely! And shamefull offensive speech should be restricted. Freedom isn't free and niether should speech.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
They probably could have avoided fines for all the shit they pulled if they had not agreed to operate within certain confines of the law to be one of these "nonpartisan" groups.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Washington PostSwift Boat Veterans for Truth and MoveOn.org Voter Fund, two outside groups that played key roles in the 2004 presidential election, reached an agreement with the Federal Election Commission to pay nearly $450,000 for various violations.
The two groups, along with the League of Conservation Voters, settled charges that they failed "to register and file disclosure reports as federal political committees and accepted contributions in violation of federal limits and source prohibitions," the FEC said in a statement Wednesday.
The commission approved the three settlements on a vote of 6-0.
The group listed as Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth will pay $299,500. In the 2004 campaign, the group leveled unsubstantiated allegations about Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry's military record in Vietnam.
MoveOn.org will pay $150,000. The liberal organization challenged President Bush on various issues in the campaign.
The League of Conservation Voters will pay $180,000. The group ran anti-Bush ads on environmental issues.
The civil penalties were the first of this magnitude since the Supreme Court upheld most of the campaign finance law passed by Congress in 2002 that barred political parties from raising unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals.
The FEC concluded that the three 527 organizations violated campaign finance laws because they expressly stated their desire to influence the presidential election in their fundraising, their public statements or their advertisements. Such activity, the FEC said, could only be conducted by political committee registered with the FEC that abide by contribution limits and public disclosure requirements. Regardless of which side these groups were on, I think they got a raw deal. Basically, they were fined for admitting that they were engaged in trying to express their opinions on matters of national importance. What's the whole point of the First Amendment if not to allow people the right to freely associate and freely comment on elections?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
I think these groups can still do that but they just can't get whatever benefits they get as a "nonpartison" organization. Clearly groups like Swift Boat & Move On are not that.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
By the way, its interesting that Raw Story conveniently failed to disclose that one of the bigger violaters was MoveOn.org. You'd almost think, I dunno, that Raw story was prone to distortions and lies.  I wonder if Raw Story is funded at all by MoveOn?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
By the way, its interesting that Raw Story conveniently failed to disclose that one of the bigger violaters was MoveOn.org. You'd almost think, I dunno, that Raw story was prone to distortions and lies.
I wonder if Raw Story is funded at all by MoveOn?
RAW like any partisan site I've seen (both sides) tends to concentrate on the other side. I agree that is distortion but it's also your MO to.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
To fair, I see that Raw Story has revised their story to include in the title the fact that MoveOn.org was fined too. Strangely enough, however, you keep excising that point from the thread title, making (I guess) you even more biased than Raw Story. Serious question, MEM: do you work for MoveOn?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
To fair, I see that Raw Story has revised their story to include in the title the fact that MoveOn.org was fined too.
Strangely enough, however, you keep excising that point from the thread title, making (I guess) you even more biased than Raw Story.
Serious question, MEM: do you work for MoveOn?
We've both been switching title threads to reflect our bias for quite a while now G-man. I feel it would be pretentious of myself & fooling no one to switch behaviour on just this one thread.
I don't really care for MoveOn & do view them much like the Swift Boat group. Both cater to the more radical extremes of the political spectrum. So no I don't work for MoveOn.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
So why do you keep excising the reference to Move On? I'm not excising the reference to the swift boats.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,353
Award-Winning Author 10000+ posts
|
|
Award-Winning Author 10000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,353 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
So why do you keep excising the reference to Move On? I'm not excising the reference to the swift boats.
Translation: I LOVE SWIFT BOAT!
Knutreturns said: Spoken like the true Greatest RDCW Champ!
All hail King Snarf!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,353
Award-Winning Author 10000+ posts
|
|
Award-Winning Author 10000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,353 |
... That reminds me of Fable. That game was awesome.
Knutreturns said: Spoken like the true Greatest RDCW Champ!
All hail King Snarf!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
Quote:
King Snarf said:
I really have no insight or informed opinion to add, so I'm just going to throw out insults at G-man in the hopes of getting brownie points on this board and decreasing the number of times everyone reminds me of the eternal sadness that is my naked skull.
Fixed that for ya.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
I barely made it to the toilet today before my ass exploded.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
So why do you keep excising the reference to Move On? I'm not excising the reference to the swift boats.
I felt this answered that...
Quote:
We've both been switching title threads to reflect our bias for quite a while now G-man. I feel it would be pretentious of myself & fooling no one to switch behaviour on just this one thread.
But suppose I can change it. Perhaps maybe you might recipracate another time.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
New York Post: - The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org's ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.
A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad. . . .
A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.
[Times PR director Abbe] Serphos declined to confirm the price and refused to offer any inkling for why the paper would give MoveOn.org such a discounted price.
The Times advertising rate card (see page 5) lists a full-page weekday political ad as costing $ 167,000 and change. According to the Federal Elections Commission's Campaign Guide for Corporations and Labor Organizations, this discount might have been an "in kind" political donation: - Services (such as advertising, printing or consulting) are valued at the prevailing commercial rate at the time the services are rendered (i.e., the amount that was paid or would have been paid for the services).
- Discounts are valued at the amount discounted (i.e., the difference between the usual and normal charge and the amount paid by the committee).
Corporate contributions to PACs are illegal under the campaign finance laws the Times itself has long championed: "Corporations and labor organizations are prohibited from making contributions in connection with federal elections," according to the FEC. (A corporation may set up and administer a "separate segregated fund," or a corporate PAC, which receives contributions from people associated with the company, but it may not contribute to its own SSF or any other federally registered PAC.) You would think that, after MoveOn.org and similar groups on the right were forced to pay big fines for violating campaign finance laws, that the New York Times would be more careful about this sort of thing. Granted, there may be an explanation here that does not implicate campaign finance laws. Perhaps the "prevailing commercial rate" for an ad in the Times is lower than that in the rate card  ; maybe such deep "discounts" are routine and thus not really discounts for the FEC's purposes  . However, for what it's worth, the American Spectator allegeds that the Times doesn't have an across the board, non-partisan, policy about this sort of thing: - The New York Times in the past has rejected "advocacy" ads from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, as well as from the National Right to Life Committee, despite the fact that both would have qualified for the same "special advocacy, stand by" rates that the radical, left-wing organization MoveOn.org was given for its smear ad of Gen. David Petraeus.
In any event, I can see why the Times spokesmen are not eager to discuss this matter.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
I barely made it to the toilet today before my ass exploded.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Have you considered changing your diet, P? This seems to be a recurring problem for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
New York Post: - The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org's ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.
A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad. . . .
A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.
[Times PR director Abbe] Serphos declined to confirm the price and refused to offer any inkling for why the paper would give MoveOn.org such a discounted price.
The Times advertising rate card (see page 5) lists a full-page weekday political ad as costing $ 167,000 and change. According to the Federal Elections Commission's Campaign Guide for Corporations and Labor Organizations, this discount might have been an "in kind" political donation: - Services (such as advertising, printing or consulting) are valued at the prevailing commercial rate at the time the services are rendered (i.e., the amount that was paid or would have been paid for the services).
- Discounts are valued at the amount discounted (i.e., the difference between the usual and normal charge and the amount paid by the committee).
Corporate contributions to PACs are illegal under the campaign finance laws the Times itself has long championed: "Corporations and labor organizations are prohibited from making contributions in connection with federal elections," according to the FEC. (A corporation may set up and administer a "separate segregated fund," or a corporate PAC, which receives contributions from people associated with the company, but it may not contribute to its own SSF or any other federally registered PAC.) You would think that, after MoveOn.org and similar groups on the right were forced to pay big fines for violating campaign finance laws, that the New York Times would be more careful about this sort of thing. Granted, there may be an explanation here that does not implicate campaign finance laws. Perhaps the "prevailing commercial rate" for an ad in the Times is lower than that in the rate card ; maybe such deep "discounts" are routine and thus not really discounts for the FEC's purposes . However, for what it's worth, the American Spectator allegeds that the Times doesn't have an across the board, non-partisan, policy about this sort of thing: - The New York Times in the past has rejected "advocacy" ads from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, as well as from the National Right to Life Committee, despite the fact that both would have qualified for the same "special advocacy, stand by" rates that the radical, left-wing organization MoveOn.org was given for its smear ad of Gen. David Petraeus.
In any event, I can see why the Times spokesmen are not eager to discuss this matter. The Spectator also reports that: - Rudy [had submitted] an ad to the NY Times citing Hillary's "the willing suspension of disbelief" comment, reviewing Petraeus' record as a decorated military leader and closing in bold with "Who should America listen to.. A decorated soldier's commitment to defending America, or Hillary Clinton's commitment to defending MoveOn.org"?
It closes with his own quote: "These times call for statemanship not politicians spewing political venom."
[If] the NY Times won't take the ad and then Rudy can attack the liberal media as well as Hillary. Bonus points to the staffer who thought up this one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Angered by an Antiwar Ad, Giuliani Seeks Equal Space
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: September 14, 2007
The New York Times came under attack Thursday by Rudolph W. Giuliani and a group of conservative Republicans for what they said was favoritism in the rate charged to MoveOn.org, a liberal group that opposes the war, for an advertisement attacking Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq.
Mr. Giuliani, a Republican presidential candidate, sought — and received — space in Friday editions of the newspaper for an advertisement in which he praises General Petraeus. Neither the Giuliani campaign nor The Times’s advertising department would disclose the price.
The MoveOn.org advertisement, for which it has said it paid $65,000, ran in the main news section on Monday, the first day of General Petraeus’s highly anticipated testimony to Congress about the progress of the Iraq war. Congressional Republicans and others condemned the advertisement, saying it impugned General Petraeus’s integrity and was unpatriotic.
During a campaign stop in Atlanta on Thursday, Mr. Giuliani told reporters that MoveOn.org and The Times had engaged in character assassination against General Petraeus.
“We are going to ask The New York Times to allow us tomorrow to print an ad that will obviously take the opposite view,” Mr. Giuliani said. He said The Times gave a “discounted” rate to MoveOn.org, which had expressed the “very excessive left-wing side of this dispute.”
The advertisement has become a major talking point for Republicans. Several have demanded that the Democratic presidential candidates condemn the advertisement, which they have not done.
Catherine J. Mathis, a spokeswoman for The New York Times Company, said the advertising department does not base its rates on political content. She also said the department does not disclose the rates it charges for individual advertisements. But she did say that “similar types of ads are priced in the same way.” She said the department charges advocacy groups $64,575 for full-page, black-and-white advertisements that run on a “standby” basis, meaning an advertiser can request a specific day and placement but is not guaranteed them.
Mr. Giuliani’s advertisement attacks MoveOn.org and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, a leading Democratic presidential candidate, while praising General Petraeus.
Freedom’s Watch, a conservative group, ran a full-page, color advertisement in The Times on Sept. 11. In a letter Thursday to its publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the president of Freedom’s Watch, Bradley A. Blakeman, said: “The New York Times representative explained to us that we could run a standby rate ad for $65,000, but we could not pick the date or placement of the ad.” Mr. Blakeman said MoveOn.org must have been able to pick the date of its advertisement, or had been given “preferential treatment” on the timing, because news organizations were discussing the advertisement before it ran.
Ms. Mathis said the content of an advertisement is not reviewed before a price is quoted.
As for advance word of when a standby ad is running, she said: “Someone might say, ‘I’d like the standby rate, I’d like it to run tomorrow,’ and we say, ‘We can’t guarantee that,’ but then if we find out it is running, we let them know. If we have room, we try to accommodate them.” I see this as mostly Rudy with new polls showing that his lead is shrinking going with an attack to please partisan conservatives. Since the Times charges advocacy groups all the same fee there doesn't seem to be much substance to his claims. At least the New York Times has some good company with all the firefighters & ground zero workers subjected to Rudy Facts
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Catherine J. Mathis, a spokeswoman for The New York Times Company, said the advertising department does not base its rates on political content. She also said the department does not disclose the rates it charges for individual advertisements. But she did say that “similar types of ads are priced in the same way.” She said the department charges advocacy groups $64,575 for full-page, black-and-white advertisements that run on a “standby” basis, meaning an advertiser can request a specific day and placement but is not guaranteed them.....As for advance word of when a standby ad is running, she said: “Someone might say, ‘I’d like the standby rate, I’d like it to run tomorrow,’ and we say, ‘We can’t guarantee that,’ but then if we find out it is running, we let them know. If we have room, we try to accommodate them.”
But wait. This was a very time-sensitive ad. For it to have the desired effect, it pretty much had to run Monday. Under such circumstances, why would MoveOn buy an ad without guaranteed placement? That would be like flying standby to your own wedding. Maybe MoveOn figured out a way to game the Times's system. Perhaps, for instance, it is possible to buy a full-price ad after learning that a standby ad will not run on a given day. However, that would seem to defeat the purpose of the pricing scheme by allowing advertisers to get guaranteed placement without necessarily paying for it. But it may also be that the Times advertising department was overly accommodating to MoveOn.org. Presumably the ad salesmen have an idea of how likely a customer is to get the desired placement for a standby ad. If ad sales are sluggish enough, the salesmen may know well in advance that a standby ad will run. But if (as the Times seems to tacitly admit) someone apprised the MoveOn.org PAC in advance that its "standby" ad would definitely run Monday, then the Times gave the PAC guaranteed placement at the standby rate--i.e., it sold something worth $167,000 for $65,000. It's hard to see how that is anything other than an in-kind campaign contribution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
So there really isn't any evidence to back up these accusations other than the ad being time sensitive. The ad could have ran the next day though & still would have been effective & pissed off all the same people. Comparisons of flying standby for a wedding just are not equitable.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
So there really isn't any evidence to back up these accusations other than the ad being time sensitive. The ad could have ran the next day though & still would have been effective & pissed off all the same people.
Actually, there's plenty of evidence, detailed above. You just chose to ignore it. Furthermore, if you read the MoveOn.org ad it was written in a future tense and, therefore, was clearly intended to be published before General Petraus's testimony was given, not after. For example, the ad reproduced at their website, has several lines that describe what they believe the General's testimony will be: - We'll hear of ....
- ...we won't hear that...
- General Petraeus will not ....
- We may hear of ....
- ...we won’t hear what
Furthermore, and most damaging to your theory, the ad in question specifically states that the General's testimony would be "today": - Today before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.
Therefore, the ad was obviously NOT intended for publication on a subsequent day, or even a different day as a "standby" ad. It was intended to be published on a particular, specific, day. Accordingly, and as noted above, it makes no sense that MoveOn would have paid for it unless they knew what it would see print. And, if they knew it would see print on Monday, they knew it wasn't a "standby" ad. Therefore, the Times should have charged them the full rate as the ad wasn't intended for standby at all. P.S.: I already saved screencaps of the their website and the ad. So don't bother contacting them to change it. PPS: If you keep editing the thread titles I may have no choice start editing them myself to say things like, I dunno, "Zick fucks Dead Babies (just kidding)" or something....since you seem to enjoy off topic and generic thread titles I'm sure you'll approve 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
... PPS: If you keep editing the thread titles I may have no choice start editing them myself to say things like, I dunno, "Zick fucks Dead Babies (just kidding)" or something....since you seem to enjoy off topic and generic thread titles I'm sure you'll approve For how many times you've retitled a thread to personally attack me that threat really has no teeth to it. It's just that thing you do. The "evidence" is circumstantial at best IMHO.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Of course the evidence is circumstantial.
There are only two kinds of evidence: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.
The only kinds of evidence that are direct evidence are (1) a full confession; (2) an eyewitness.
Obviously, no one at the Times (or MoveOn) is going to confess to violating the campaign finance laws. Therefore, I don't see how we would ever see that. Simlarly, there is unlikely to be eyewitness to what was, at heart, a financial transaction. If there were eyewitnesses, it would be employees of the Times or MoveOn and, as noted above, they are unlikely to testify against themselves.
Does this mean the evidence is insufficient simply be viture of being circumstantial? No. Most cases are won on circumstantial evidence, not direct evidence because of the limitations noted above.
Again, you simply choose to ignore the evidence there is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Well it's very poor circumstantial evidence that I doubt would survive any type of legal scrutiny. Is there any move by those yelling accusations to do anything legally?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Well for the NYT their rep is not a problem, but I hope they did break the law. It would front them out as the house organ for the American left and the Democratic party. The Dems don't have to do the heavy sliming, a media/Soros/nutroots coalition will act like swine on their behalf. The person that filed the complaint is quite entertaining in his ranting. It should be easy to prove that the Times was on the up & up here.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
The fact that someone may or may not be colorful or even biased is hardly indicative of whether their complaint will have merit on a legal basis.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 747
I Feel Pretty, So NeoCon Pretty 500+ posts
|
|
I Feel Pretty, So NeoCon Pretty 500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 747 |
Gee,man... said: 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
The fact that someone may or may not be colorful or even biased is hardly indicative of whether their complaint will have merit on a legal basis. I agree with you there, I just meant the claim looks very weak. I'm guessing that the Times can prove that it has that standby rate they charged both Rudy & moveon.org. There should also be many sales people who can testify that they would have loved a bigger commision selling that ad space at a higher rate - if they could have.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
the claim looks very weak.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
It appears that another group has filed a complaint over the Times in this matter: - The American Conservative Union has complained to the feds that The New York Times' alleged discount to MoveOn.org for its contentious "General Betray Us" ad amounted to an illegal corporate contribution to a political committee.
The conservative group griped to the Federal Election Commission that it had paid "significantly more" for a full-page ad the day after the MoveOn ad attacking Gen. David Petraeus.
As noted elsewhere, I personally think that campaign finance laws are a form of censorship and do not support them. However, the New York Times has long advocated for them. Therefore, I think, if anything, their alleged complicity in violating these laws is especially egregrious.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
...alleged complicity in violating these laws is especially egregrious... As you well know, it doesn't take much to allege something.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
...it doesn't take much to allege something.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Regardless of which side these groups were on, I think they got a raw deal. Basically, they were fined for admitting that they were engaged in trying to express their opinions on matters of national importance.
What's the whole point of the First Amendment if not to allow people the right to freely associate and freely comment on elections?
The Times could do something good for America here. They could fight the law that they are accused of having broken and get it overturned. I would respect that since, as noted above, I think its a bad law no matter who it targets. Of course, they probably won't do that. Instead, they'll probably continue to claim they didn't break the law while urging its use against conservatives in the future. Just another example of censorship on the left?
|
|
|
|
|
