… so little time.
In Iowa, two legislators (one R and one D) introduce a bill that would, in essense, ban any political speech that hasn’t been vetted and approved by the so-called “beneficiary candidate”:
3. A person shall not distribute any campaign material concerning a target candidate with the intent to encourage the recipient of that campaign material to vote against that target candidate, without first … obtaining, in writing, the prior consent of the beneficiary candidate to the distribution of the campaign material.4. A person shall not distribute any campaign material that contains a cartoon, caricature, or defacement of the personal likeness of a target candidate.
5. A person shall not distribute any campaign material that contains photographs or other depictions of human role playing, except of a candidate who has approved the campaign material.
Well, it’s not like they are really trying to [unConstitutionally] limit political speech, they are only trying to get rid of the unhelpful language
The bill also places additional restrictions on the negative content of campaign material used against a particular candidate.
A bill to warm the hearts of Pragmatists everywhere!
UPDATE: Buyers remorse
Obama order worries speech groupsAt issue is an unprecedented directive that Obama — who has long railed against lobbyists as the personification of a corrupt Washington culture — issued last week barring officials charged with doling out stimulus funds from talking to registered lobbyists about specific projects or applicants for stimulus cash.
Under the directive, which began going into effect this week, agency officials are required to begin meetings about stimulus funding for projects by asking whether any party to the conversation is a lobbyist.
“If so, the lobbyist may not attend or participate in the telephonic or in-person contact, but may submit a communication in writing,†reads Obama’s memo, which requires the agencies to post lobbyists’ written communications online. [...]
First Amendment implications aside, the new lobbyist-muzzle rule is unprecedented and could have unintended consequences, said ethics and lobbying lawyer Larry Norton. [...]
“I have to say I was quite surprised by the reach of it.â€
I have to say I believe we are going to hear that line more and more often.
Comment by SarahW on 3/28 @ 2:52 pm #
WTF?
“Campaign material regarding a vote cast
3 14 in a house of the general assembly by a target candidate is
3 15 prohibited if a majority of the members of that house voted in
3 16 the same manner as the target candidate and if a majority of
3 17 the political party which is not the party of the target
3 18 candidate voted in the same manner as the target candidate.”
Comment by The Pragmatic Republicans on 3/28 @ 2:53 pm #
We love it!
Comment by Darleen on 3/28 @ 2:54 pm #
SarahW
Being part of the Majority means never being held responsible for “going along”.
Comment by SarahW on 3/28 @ 2:55 pm #
My speech rights belong to the candidate? Citizens can’t print pamphet’s with opinion about the voting record of candidates for office? Do they have brain woms in the Ioway corn and Ioway beef?
Comment by Darleen on 3/28 @ 2:55 pm #
BTW … both Pat and Charles live in Palos Verdes
I wonder if it’s something in the water?
Comment by SarahW on 3/28 @ 2:56 pm #
This bill is a joke, right?
Comment by SarahW on 3/28 @ 2:57 pm #
Brain worms, not woms. Although brain woms can’t be good.
Comment by Darleen on 3/28 @ 2:58 pm #
SarahW
You can’t even draw a cartoon nor Photoshop of the “target candidate” …
I wonder, I’m in SoCal, but if I blog a political cartoon mocking these Iowa legislatures, are they going to arrest me?
Comment by SarahW on 3/28 @ 3:01 pm #
I guess P&C art the “art jury” of the architecture of the Republican party.
(From Palos Verdes wiki: “Palos Verdes Estates’ aesthetics and architecture are protected by an Art Jury, a non-governmental organization which must approve any exterior alteration to any building, fence, sidewalk, or other structure.”)
Comment by SarahW on 3/28 @ 3:02 pm #
” if I blog a political cartoon mocking these Iowa legislatures.” Only if any of them, or anyone else, is running for elective office.
Comment by Joe on 3/28 @ 3:23 pm #
Where to begin? I know! How about Richard Pryor’s response to that heckler below! We can call it constitutionally protected performance art speech.
Comment by ccoffer on 3/28 @ 3:30 pm #
Thank you, John McCAin, for opening the door to this sort of shit. The one thing I’ll never forgive Bush for is signing that piece of shit McCain-Feingold bill while he considered it unconstitutional. He figured the Extreme Court would summarily throw it out. Nope.
Comment by George Orwell on 3/28 @ 3:32 pm #
A person shall not distribute any campaign material that contains photographs or other depictions of human role playing,
I hate it when politicians get involved in that human role playing stuff. Everyone knows they aren’t human.
Comment by Jeff G. on 3/28 @ 3:32 pm #
Engage in civil disobedience on a grand scale, if this come to pass.
Find old mimeograph machines. Print pamphlets and drop them out of crop dusters.
Comment by SarahW on 3/28 @ 3:40 pm #
At least this bipartisan unconstitutionality sets the proper tone of cooperation.
Comment by SarahW on 3/28 @ 3:41 pm #
Also advising people to dropp things out of a crop-duster sounds dangerously like a death threat to me.
Comment by Abe Froman on 3/28 @ 3:45 pm #
I hope they both get gang-raped by Silverback Apes.
- I’m Abe Froman and I approved this message.
Comment by The Silverback Apes on 3/28 @ 3:56 pm #
I hope they both get gang-raped by Silverback Apes.
Not with our dicks, pal. We have some dignity.
Comment by SarahW on 3/28 @ 4:00 pm #
I can’t find any press coverage about the reason Anderson would push this unconstitutional-on-its-face time-waster.
Who could think it a compelling state interest to keep information from voters or block discusison of candidates based on the wishes of a single person with interests of his own, which may not match those of voters? To point out accurately a candidates vote on any given piece of legislation, without regard to what any one else or any particular collective of voters did?
Comment by Dan Collins on 3/28 @ 4:06 pm #
Truth? You can’t handle the . . . honestly there’s not enough of it to go around.
Comment by happyfeet on 3/28 @ 4:08 pm #
The Republican one is a lawyer even. Also he’s one of those global warming nutcases.
Comment by guinsPen on 3/28 @ 4:24 pm #
target candidate
Well, I should say.
Iowa Stupid
Comment by Rebecca on 3/28 @ 4:31 pm #
The mindset behind this is:
Political campaigns are contests between two candidates, the winner decided by popular vote. Therefore, only the candidates have a real vested interest in which one wins or loses. The voters are just viewers, sending their vote via text message, and watching the finale to see who won. Until next season.
They’ve reduced our political system to a TV game show, broadcast for our viewing pleasure. Have people really become this stupid? If this had been predicted 20 years ago, I’d have considered it outrageously far fetched.
Comment by SarahW on 3/28 @ 4:34 pm #
Hey, you can subscribe to Rich Anderson’s newsletter. The irony, it is rich like Ioway ham.
Remembering the Journey of this Great Nation (pdf)
Comment by happyfeet on 3/28 @ 4:42 pm #
Jeez. What a pompous little douchebag corn-child this Richard Anderson is. The whole Charlie Grassley thing is a lot demystified for me now.
Comment by Great Mencken's Ghost! on 3/28 @ 4:44 pm #
Free Speech: It’s Gonna Cost Ya!
Comment by Mr. Pink on 3/28 @ 4:51 pm #
The fact that elected representatives in AMERICA are proposing this means that our Republic is well on its way to death. This is simply a symptom.
Comment by SarahW on 3/28 @ 5:03 pm #
Anderson has bad taste in historians, as well, recommending anything written by Joseph Ellis, one that is known for whoppers about his own participation in history, fabricating history, among a host of other ridiculous whoppers like scoring amazing last-minute touchdowns at football games. (having never been on the team).
Comment by Sdferr on 3/28 @ 5:08 pm #
Maybe it’s an occasional thing in Iowa republicans. I can sure remember a few headaches brought on by listening to Jim Leach, for instance.
Comment by router on 3/28 @ 5:12 pm #
iowa republicans – corn welfare queens
Comment by Rob Crawford on 3/28 @ 5:12 pm #
WTF? My first thought is “well, they just lost the Ace of Spades gang”. My second thought is “what the hell do they mean by ‘human role playing’”?
Seriously — are they forbidding actors and models? If so, couldn’t you just get around it by going LOLcat?
Comment by Mr. Pink on 3/28 @ 5:16 pm #
31
It seems like they are banning pictures of anyone LARPing, which if you have ever seen any of the people that do that crap might be a good thing.
Comment by SarahW on 3/28 @ 5:19 pm #
#28 – some backstory on Anderson’s recommended historian, Joseph Ellis. (For bonus, Ellis declaims Bush very likely the worst president evah. )
Comment by router on 3/28 @ 5:20 pm #
it takes a constitutional law professor to shred the constitution.
Comment by SarahW on 3/28 @ 5:21 pm #
Yes, they are forbidding “Peg and Joe talk about their health care options” ads. INSANE.
Comment by router on 3/28 @ 5:28 pm #
TONIGHT AT 8:30, CELEBRATE HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT HOUR.
Comment by SarahW on 3/28 @ 5:35 pm #
Yay to that, router. I plan to use all my major appliances.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 3/28 @ 5:39 pm #
I’m gonna celebrate human achievement by watching the Disney HD channel.
Comment by guinsPen on 3/28 @ 6:16 pm #
“target candidate”
With a capital “T” and that rhymes with “P” and that stands for Pooltifications.
…
I blame Dar’.
Comment by McGehee on 3/28 @ 6:54 pm #
If it passes, I might suddenly become very interested in Iowa politics. I’ll be like an offshore pirate radio station, except on the internet. And, like, without audio.
OUTLAW!
Comment by pdbuttons on 3/28 @ 6:55 pm #
human achievement hour/ now i can take all those appliances i never
used [pasta-maker-coffee-bean grinder-lava lamp-lil' mister i think i can
with government subsidies train set]
and get all…humany
Comment by Joe on 3/28 @ 7:25 pm #
Hey look, someone drew their picture (of course it is greatly over scale, the real thing is an “angry inch” as they say.
Comment by geoffb on 3/28 @ 8:32 pm #
So instead of elected representatives they are now jousting royalty.
Comment by Swen Swenson on 3/28 @ 8:50 pm #
Oh I wish. On game shows the winner usually has to have a little something on the ball. In politics it seems that the winner is usually the guy who can make the most sweeping promises and tell the most brazen lies.
Given that, is it any wonder that most of our politicians would very much like to limit criticism of their august selves? Even if things like this should pass I think the proper response is a big horse laugh and a ’see ya in court govner!’
Comment by Christopher Taylor on 3/28 @ 8:59 pm #
I have to say I believe we are going to hear that line more and more often.
Which one:
…unprecedented and could have unintended consequences
or
I have to say I was quite surprised by the reach of it.
?
Comment by peter jackson on 3/28 @ 9:23 pm #
Boy these fuckers are getting bold, aren’t they?
But it’s a perfect example of a Democrat and a Republican compromising away what to both of them is at best a secondary concern: freedom.
Seriously, what are we going to do about it?
yours/
peter.
Comment by Seth on 3/29 @ 6:02 am #
Re: the “Buyer’s Remorse” item…
Wasn’t BO going to get away from ruling by fiat? Legislative process, public comment period, time for debate and all that? Change and the hope of it? What happened to that promise?
Don’t bother, those are rhetorical questions. I shouldn’t be shocked anymore…actually I never was shocked, unfortunately.
Comment by Christopher Taylor on 3/29 @ 8:56 am #
While I agree Republicans don’t seem terribly worried about liberty, I fail to see where a Republican was involved in this story even tangentially.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/29 @ 9:01 am #
In Iowa, two legislators (one R and one D) introduce a bill that would, in essense, ban any political speech that hasn’t been vetted and approved by the so-called “beneficiary candidateâ€
Comment by MarkD on 3/29 @ 11:01 am #
Did anybody think these guys were in it for anyone or anything but themselves? Oh, you get the rare one who does try to do good, but they get slapped into line, fast or marginalized.
March Madness is not just basketball.