The Glade 4.0

Yes.

I'd start with making PACs illegal and go from there.

Here's things to read...http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/rules

You will specifically want 3.b.viii and 3.b.ix

_________________

How would either one of these things help prevent this horrific crime?

The NRCC is a PAC.

An honest elected official would request his supporters not to create misleading things and publicly denounce anything that could be misconstrued.

Aizle:

What about the Democrat-aligned PACs? Are we going to outlaw them, too?

_________________

Since we like the Democrats, I'm going with no.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Yes. Every PAC and Super PAC. Rules apply to everyone.

I'm not entirely certain they apply to Democrats ... been watching the Senate lately?

_________________

Yup. All PACs suck ***, universally.

This. I think the answer to most political shenanigans is public shaming, not legislation. Flat out bribery, voter intimidation, ballot tampering, etc. should obviously be criminal matters, but misleading websites, almost-but-not-quite-lying attack ads, etc. should just be held up to scrutiny and ridicule. And that's exactly what the Dems are doing in this case.

Was that site created by an elected official?

Do you have to be an elected official to make such a parody site?

I guess I just don't see the outrage here.

How do you get around the free speech issues with that, Aizle? I mean, what you're saying here is literally that you would "start with making [organized groups of like-minded voters campaigning on behalf of a candidate or issue] illegal". That doesn't strike you as seriously problematic?

Including Priorities USA, which was responsible for nearly $65 billion in Pro-Obama funding? Just making sure we're on the same page here ...

_________________

A viable third party would fix all these problems. Negative ads and BS like this doesn't work when you can't automatically win by making one other person lose.

Every multi-party system on the planet notwithstanding, I suppose? Multiple parties really isn't a panacea. In fact, I can't really think of much of anything that simply having a viable third party would fix.

Personally I've never bought the free speech issues people attribute for PACs. People have the right to speak their own mind. I don't necessarily feel that translates into pool their funds and buy airtime, etc.

Collective Bargaining in the private sector = Good
Collective Bargaining in the public sector = Good
Collective Bargaining in Politics = Bad
Individual Bargaining in the private sector = Bad
Individual Bargaining in the public sector = Bad
Individual Bargaining in Politics = Good

Hmmmm

_________________

Yup. I hate the amount of money that's involved in our political system.

I'm not a big fan of collective bargaining either.

My PAC doesn't suck.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

In the video on this article, there's the story of this guy who supposedly got tricked into donating $1,000 to the NRCC for one of their websites. Now at first, I was pretty skeptical. No matter how much searching I did, I could not get http://johnbarrow2014.com/ to show up in a Google search. How the hell did people get tricked by this website if it doesn't even show up on search engines?

But then I decided to try Yahoo. Bam, 4th result. That explains it... maybe Yahoo users could be that retarded.

No, I'm still not buying it. He's definitely a shill.

If we are, I suggest starting closer to "using the IRS for political purposes" as opposed to going after people speaking truth about candidates positions and legislative history on websites using those candidates names.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Still an obvious attack site, even if Yahoo is listing things weird.

_________________