Reality TV gone mad!

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I'll note the Constitution states the minimum qualifications for running for President. It is more a list of who cannot run than it is a list of who can run. Of course, it simply isn't practical to run if you lack one of the following qualifications: (1) Money (Make NO mistake - dollars get at least as many votes as citizens get) (2) Pedigree of some sort

as an interesting note to this, there has been at least one member of President Bushes family in a political office for over the past 50 years (not one person mind you, but his family is a political dynasty)

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Pedigree DOES count for a lot in the political spectrum.

I firmly believe that - had he not been killed - John F. Kennedy, Jr. would most likely have been the next president after George W. Bush.

There were already hints and speculations that he may be running for the Senate shortly before his untimely death.

He would definitely have made an "interesting" candidate.

[Lox]

Originally posted by Nachtrafe: Hmmmmm...one is forced to wonder. If this show airs within 60 days of the actual election, does it fall under the auspicies of the (unConstitutional!!) campaign finance reform bill? If so, the 'Candidate' could be up for felony charges and a hefty fine. So could all of these TV twits. Hmmmmm...

What is the problem with being on TV within 60 days of an election. I am in advertising and just did some research into this for my boss. We are running tv spots for a retail company during the political season. The political canidates are eligible for the lowest rates the tv stations offer to any advertiser within 60 days of a general election and within 45 days of a primary. Are there other requirements for the canidates as to what spots they can run and when?

Originally posted by Nachtrafe: No offense, but it would be kind of stupid for non-Americans to have a say so in picking an American president.

They wouldn't be picking the president, they would be picking a canidate to run for president. But perhaps non-citizens shouldn't pick a canidate. Let me see, how much did foreign corporations donate to campaign funds last year?

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Lox: They wouldn't be picking the president, they would be picking a canidate to run for president. But perhaps non-citizens shouldn't pick a canidate. Let me see, how much did foreign corporations donate to campaign funds last year?

Obviously not enough. Their man, Al Gore, got beat. He was the one accepting huge paychecks from the Chinese gov't.

Most of Bush's "campaign donations" came from corporations here in the U.S.

Of course, that's not much to brag about either, since a couple of them have now gone bankrupt (like EnRon & World.Com).

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Pedigree DOES count for a lot in the political spectrum. I firmly believe that - had he not been killed - John F. Kennedy, Jr. would most likely have been the next president after George W. Bush. There were already hints and speculations that he may be running for the Senate shortly before his untimely death. He would definitely have made an "interesting" candidate.

Yeah, I imagine he would. Human nature being what it is, we tend to want to follow attractive, charasmatic 'leader types', such as JFK Jr. Believe it or not, I was a fan of his. It was a tragedy when he died. I dont know that I would have voted for him for President, but I would have had to give it serious consideration. Anyway, point is that the Kennedy's, the Bush's, etc are well know as powerful, attractive 'leader types', and the sheep tend to follow them around.

As for the pedigree...well yeah. Just look at how long the British monarchy has lasted. Not all that long ago it was in serious danger of being buried under a wave of public displeasure. Now, with Diana, before the divorce/her death, and now Henry(definitely an 'Attractive, charismatic individual') their approval ratings are soaring. It's yet another example of how (their) pedigree can affect (our) behavior.

EDIT: AWESOME!! *Looks at Avatar* This post turned me into an Elminster!!

[ 09-20-2002, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Nachtrafe ]

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Lox: quote: Originally posted by Nachtrafe: Hmmmmm...one is forced to wonder. If this show airs within 60 days of the actual election, does it fall under the auspicies of the (unConstitutional!!) campaign finance reform bill? If so, the 'Candidate' could be up for felony charges and a hefty fine. So could all of these TV twits. Hmmmmm...

What is the problem with being on TV within 60 days of an election. I am in advertising and just did some research into this for my boss. We are running tv spots for a retail company during the political season. The political canidates are eligible for the lowest rates the tv stations offer to any advertiser within 60 days of a general election and within 45 days of a primary. Are there other requirements for the canidates as to what spots they can run and when?[/QUOTE]According to the recently passed (unConstitutional!!) finance reform bill noone, not an individual, nor any organization, is allowed, under penalty of law, to place television endorsements for a specific candidate(or party)within 30 days of local elections and 60 days of national elections. The penalty is a felnoy charge(Class B I believe), and a hefty fine.

So much for freedom of speech. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

quote: Originally posted by Nachtrafe: No offense, but it would be kind of stupid for non-Americans to have a say so in picking an American president.

They wouldn't be picking the president, they would be picking a canidate to run for president.[/QUOTE]Non-US Citizens have NO SAY in how we pick our president. PERIOD!! Nor should they have ANY say in how we choose our candidates!!!

But perhaps non-citizens shouldn't pick a canidate. Let me see, how much did foreign corporations donate to campaign funds last year?

None, at least not legally.

[ 09-20-2002, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Nachtrafe ]

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Lox: They wouldn't be picking the president, they would be picking a canidate to run for president. But perhaps non-citizens shouldn't pick a canidate. Let me see, how much did foreign corporations donate to campaign funds last year?

Obviously not enough. Their man, Al Gore, got beat. He was the one accepting huge paychecks from the Chinese gov't.

Most of Bush's "campaign donations" came from corporations here in the U.S.

Of course, that's not much to brag about either, since a couple of them have now gone bankrupt (like EnRon & World.Com).[/QUOTE]Now now Cerek...let's be fair. EVERYONE took donations from EnRon and World.com. Democrats, Republicans, even a few Independants. Although, en masse the Dems took more money from EnRon than anyone else. Heck, whatshisname(the CEO of EnRon, cant think of his name off the top of my head) was one of the Lincoln Bedroom/Hotel (well paying)'guests'...several times.

[ 09-20-2002, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Nachtrafe ]

[Timber Loftis]

Original post:
According to the recently passed (unConstitutional!!) finance reform bill noone, not an individual, nor any organization, is allowed, under penalty of law, to place television endorsements for a specific candidate(or party)within 30 days of local elections and 60 days of national elections. The penalty is a felnoy charge(Class B I believe), and a hefty fine.
So much for freedom of speech.

Freedom of Speech is by no means absolute. Congress/states/municipalities readily limit speech in constitutional ways. The most common of these would be by limiting the "time, place, and manner" of speech. Which is why a parade permit is a perfectly valid legal requirement. And is also why the law is not unconstitutional.

If you are truly interested, you should check out the campaign finance law in Vermont, which allows no politician to accept more than a certain dollar amount (I think $100) from any given person. This law is so rockin' cool. It actually means a politician has to go out and (*gasp*) gain support from a majority of the voters.

I also believe there is a hole in either the federal or the VT law regarding protected political speech by PACs.

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Original post: According to the recently passed (unConstitutional!!) finance reform bill noone, not an individual, nor any organization, is allowed, under penalty of law, to place television endorsements for a specific candidate(or party)within 30 days of local elections and 60 days of national elections. The penalty is a felnoy charge(Class B I believe), and a hefty fine. So much for freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech is by no means absolute. Congress/states/municipalities readily limit speech in constitutional ways. The most common of these would be by limiting the "time, place, and manner" of speech. Which is why a parade permit is a perfectly valid legal requirement. And is also why the law is not unconstitutional.

I know. I just dont like the precedent of Congress making any law that limits Freedom of Speech. I mean, with a simple majority vote, Congress has done so. It's a rather frightening precedent. That's what Amendments, and the Amendment process is for.

If you are truly interested, you should check out the campaign finance law in Vermont, which allows no politician to accept more than a certain dollar amount (I think $100) from any given person. This law is so rockin' cool. It actually means a politician has to go out and (*gasp*) gain support from a majority of the voters.

Kewl!!! Wish we had one like that in Idaho(where I'm from). Or here in NY(where I live now). Dont get me wrong, I'm all for politicians cleaning up their act and curtailing the HUGE money influxes they get. I just dont like the implications of the campaign finance reform bill.

I also believe there is a hole in either the federal or the VT law regarding protected political speech by PACs.

Actually, IIRC, it's "any not for profit organization". Did you know that this same hole(inserted as a line item by...guess who...the Democrats...allows incumbents(and incumbents only!) to 'contribute' up to $10,000 to such groups. So it's still the same old 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine' system as before. Can you tell that I'm disgusted by the majority of our politicians? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Reality TV with Americans choosing their own president=siamese-twin-oxy-morons anyone?

That has to be the stupidist idea for a reality TV show that I've ever heard of.
Not that I've ever considered any of the others to be all that smart.