wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] John Celardo from Fanwood, NJ June 26, 2007 - 10:13AM

  When the Court’s majority was not in their favor, any ruling against the conservative agenda resulted in cries of “activist judges.” The campaign funding decision in particular seems to be an attempt to legislate from the bench. Isn’t that judicial activism?

  
  
• [2] John Lobell from Manhattan June 26, 2007 - 10:59AM

  With regard to this morning’s discussion of campaign finance:

  I think two issues are bring confused.

  One is the prevention of politicians from taking money for their votes. (This might be campaign contributions, gifts, jobs for family members, or jobs after leaving office.) What is going on is obscene and is often criminal bribery. It should be stopped through enforcement of existing bribery laws and the enactment of new laws.

  However, something else is also going on. Various entities, obviously some with a lot of money, express their point of view TO THE PUBLIC, often through advertising, but also through “conservative” talk radio, and “liberal” newspapers, TV networks, and NPR radio.

  It is interesting to note that advocacy of reform makes reference to the first (BRIBERY), and then proposes regulating the second (THE PUBLIC ACCESS TO POLITICAL INFORMATION).

  Specifically what is advocated is the regulation of “conservative” talk radio and corporate political advertising. Stricter bribery laws are not advocated.

  I think we are seeing one of the most dangerous attempts to regulate WHAT POLITICAL INFORMATION THE PUBLIC CAN HEAR in our history, using arguments about BRIBERY as a reason.

  Brian, you gotta be more aggressive at catching these guys.

  John from Manhattan

  A decades long dedicated listener