Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
It would be hard to prosecute this because it says "intent". What they need is 2 penalties. The first is for distributing false information (minor offense) and the second is for knowingly distributing false information.
Proving intent is almost always impossible.
|
I agree. Not only is the intent issue a problem but the issue of remedial action has the potential to create total chaos and can cripple our federal government government. This legislation concentrates too much power in the office of AG, a political appointed position ,regardless of the theoretical stuff about what the AG is supposed to be, it is a partisan office. The AG would have the authority find if a "reasonable" violation occurred. So one hurdle is "intent", (odds are a subjective finding) and another we have the AG making a "reasonableness" finding (also subjective) and then we go into the phase of determining what corrective action to take, i.e. corrective advertising or maybe re-elections. the AG will be under tremendous political pressure. And the kicker is that all of this would have to be done in a very short time frame and at a micro-level because much of this deceptive information/activity may be at a precinct level.
I understand the intent, but from a practical point of view I think we should stay with existing laws and regulations regarding deceptive practices.
-----Added 20/11/2008 at 04 : 34 : 41-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
The Republicans have opposed most serious attempts at election reform in recent years with the assumption that any such reform would more likely benefit Democrats.
|
Some of us just don't support legislation that won't improve our electoral process, and we give our reasons.