DU=CNN Poll: Do you believe that all political ads should be required to

[Tight_rope]

have the public approval of the candidates themselves? Please vote now!

Yes 84% 591 votes

No 16% 112


http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

[eleny]

1. Thanks

I don't know about all the legal aspects of this and wondered what a "yes" vote really meant. But I voted yes anyway. Especially after this week. I've had enough of my candidate, Kerry, having to battle back the lies and lying scumbags behind them.

[Spoon]

2. Yes would mean that if you wanted to run an ad against Bush,

you'd first have to get approval from the other dominate party. A clear violation of the first amendment.

[not systems]

3. No! What sort of free speech is that?

Groups should be able to say what they wish.

The candidates can choose to embrace or distance them
self as they wish.

But they shouldn't setup fake groups like the swift boat liars.

[A_Possum]

4. Maybe they should be subject to stricter libel laws

That is, you can spread any lie you want in most cases, but if you say slanderous untruthful things in an ad designed to influence an election, you are presumed to be acting maliciously.

Might slow 'em down a bit. Probably not.

[Cookie wookie]

5. I contribute to MoveOn and others

because that is the only way to get any opposition opinion to the bush admin out to the mass media and public. Without these organizations and ads, who in the public would know a fraction of the fraction they know (other than those who get their information from the internet)!! Other than Lou Dobbs, Bill Moyers, and Jon Stewart there is NO opposition to the bush agenda. None, zip, zero. Bush and his cronies want to use these swift boat guys to hurt not just kerry with the lies, but also to take a huge swipe at groups like Moveon, because they must stifle any and all criticism in order to stay in power and gain even more power.

To bend to them is to allow a situation in the US that is intolerable and a threat to democracy. We have no unbiased media. And the opinions and knowledge of half or more of us has no public outlet.

Also, if candidates approved of what the 501c4s said, then they would be in violation of campaign laws, if I'm understanding them correctly. So the question is loaded to begin with.

What we have to fire back with is that with all forms of the media tied to the political agenda of the right wing, in order to save our democracy and get information to the people so they can make informed political decisions, we MUST have these groups and they must be allowed to express our opinions unless the media is regulated so that we go back to the equal time laws of the past (pre Reagan) and before the 1996 deregulation.

The media belongs to the American people, not the corporations. We are exercising our free speech rights through the use of groups like Moveon. Without them, our speech is stifled.