RE: First Amendemnt

[Ellen Russak <erussak@aol.com>]

Joan writes: If the message receives funding from either "hard" 
or "soft" money and hits the airwaves via radio, television, or 
Internet, I believe it must be accurate in its facts and tagged 
with its sponsors.

That's an interesting thought - I believe that political ads paid 
for by hard money must list who pays for them and report the 
expenditure to the elections division.  Soft money has a 
different set of rules, however, which is why it is so dangerous.  
Of course listing who paid for an ad may not mean much if it 
states "this message is paid for by the Bob Jones PAC" - since 
"Bob" may just be a front for some organization that doesn't want 
it's name publicized.  

As far as accuracy goes, 1) who would be the "ad policeman" and 
what would be the penalty and who would be penalized - the ad 
purchaser or the media entity that accepted the ad?  2) the 
"truth" can be twisted and perverted in many ways and still be 
technically accurate.  I'm sure the media would say that 
candidate B is free to buy his or her own ad to correct any 
misstatements.  

There are media watch organizations that do police political ads 
and print their findings - even some newspapers do that.  Few 
people really read in-depth information about candidates and the 
attack ads plant a seed of doubt that does influence the voter at 
some subliminal level - even those that know better.  People hate 
them and they decry them but they work.

I don't agree with the supreme court's interpretation of the 
first amendment in this case - I think they over interpreted it 
and the results have been very detrimental to our democracy.  The 
CFR debate reminds me of the 50+ year struggle for women to get 
the vote - women were dependent on a male legislature that had 
nothing to gain and everything to lose by passing that amendment.  
Also many women felt they were incapable of handling that 
responsibility and faught against it.  

So it is with CFR. The legislature gives it lip support but when 
push comes to shove, it is always defeated. The grassroots are 
also divided - they want clean govenment but many are not willing 
to pay the price or would be happy with half measures that 
prevent meaningful reform. Voter apathy is the Catch 22 - the 
dirty politics keeps people out of the voting booth and 
meaningful reform will not happen unless voters demand it by 
getting politically educated and involved. I would love to see a 
grassroots swell of support like we saw wi