DISQUS

Say we had full public financing of elections.

Politicians might have needed finanicing in the past, but they don't now -- it costs very little to have a website, write a blog and post videos on YouTube. The Internet gives anyone with a message the tools to put it out. Of course, others may not read or watch what they put out, but freedom of speech doesn't include the right to an audience.

So I propose: no public financing. Campaign donations be limited to $1000 per individual per year.

Special interests can buy ads, as money have done through PACs.

Buying ads that support a candidate is essentially the same as giving money to the candidate. Ads don't buy speech, they buy an audience -- something freedom of speech doesn't include the right to. If a company or pressure group has a message they want people to hear, they can use the normal tools that anyone else on the Internet does. That way they get just as much voice as anyone else.

Rich people who has something worthwhile to say have no difficulty getting heard without paying people to listen.

The policies necessary to stop special interests from even speaking about or with a candidate can be nothing short of fully eviscerating the First Amendent.

Everyone should have the right to say what they want, just not the right to buy influence.

Easy: limit that government power as much as possible.

How would you do that? Saying something is easy doesn't make it so.

The PFF are paid shills for the RIAA -- just look at where their money comes from.

Wouldn't it be simpler just to use purely open-source software, then you know you won't be caught out be license gotchas?

Exhibit 3 says US internet ad spending was $16.9 bn in 2006. And exhibit 5 says worldwide internet ad spending was $16.9 bn in the same year.

Can we conclude that in 2006, no-one outside the USA spent and money on internet ads?

I think CBS should just pay up the seventy dollars; it'd be cheaper than defending the suit.