5/1     The 1st Amend says we can't abridge right to free political
        speech. How did this come to mean we have to air well-tuned
        propaganda on our national airways?  When did corporations begin to
        be counted as people for the purpose of free speech?  If you want to
        go the Founding Fathers route, remember that they had no clue that
        we would spawn an entire industry devoted to creating need for
        products (and, by extension, candidates).  I'm not a Communist, but
        I don't think you should get a bigger voice just because you make
        more money.
        \_ Sure, now figure out how to craft a law properly to make this happen.
           What we had passed recently clearly doesn't work for a number of
           reasons that have been stated already.  -- ilyas
           \_ It was a step in the right direction and a foot in the door.
              Let's put some pressure on that opening and wedge our way in.
              \_ Except a bad law is a step backwards, not forward.  It is
                 unlikely to be repealed, and will degrade political freedom
                 in the US.  I give no points for trying badly. -- ilyas
                 \_ I get where it didn't stop up all of the gaps, but even
                    reading back through Kai's motd, I have no idea where
                    this degradation of political freedom bit is justified.
                    \_ You haven't been reading kaismotd very carefully.
                         -- ilyas
                       \_ Sorry, o venerable Ilyas, but this wisdom remains
                          opaque to me.  Your reputation for being cranky,
                          however, is beginning to make sense.
                          \_ It's too bad people never tell me things to my
                             face (i.e. sign their names), with the possible
                             exception of Mr. Holub's famous 'you are an idiot'
                             line, although in his case I suspect he had
                             forgotten how to say anything else... -- ilyas
                             \_ you have to ask yourself why signing posts
                                is useful.  i very strongly believe that it
                                is non-useful, and that the main motivation
                                for signing is ego.  before you start blathering
                                about "accountability", let me point out that
                                first of all most people on the motd don't
                                know eacher in real life, so my knowing that
                                you are "ilyas" means nothing, and second of
                                all, signed posts are not verifiable in any
                                way and can be easily abused.  Finally,
                                signed posts lead directly to ad hominem
                                attacks which are just pointless(see above).
                                also, when people post anonymosely, they can
                                argue random sides of an issue to explore
                                different ideas rather than declare a personal
                                side of the issue and duke it out as a partisain
                                flame war.   and no, i'm not the guy giving
                                you a hard time in the above section of this
                                thread.
        \_ Is this just a freeper trying to make liburals look bad?
           \- if you ask a more pointed question, i may be able to answer
              in part. you raise too many issues. 1st amd law does distinguish
              between commercial speech and political speech ... it would be
              much tougher for a zoning law to be written that would disallow
              you to put "vote for X" sign in your front yard than "buy
              marlboro cigarettes". --psb