Home > Uncategorized > Campaigning vs. freedom of speech

Campaigning vs. freedom of speech

Approps of nothing, I just remembered how, sometime in 1994-95, I watched the 1988 Hindi movie starring Rekha, Khoon Bhari Maang – the rare female-lead + feministic phillum. Strident, cliched, loud, tasteless – in other words, just like any other 80’s movie. But it warmed the cockles of my heart, yes.

The funny, bizzare thing here was that I never realized that Shatrughan Sinha was even part of the movie (he’s the ‘enabler’, like Sunny Deol in Damini – he’s who helps Rekha fight back against her (would-have-been) murderer husband). Every scene which focused on Shatrughan Sinha was chopped out. Every scene where he has a speaking part (but is not the focus), had a big grey blur on the screen in place of his face. I think his voice was dubbed over too. I barely noticed all of this, except wondering why they had a grey pie in the middle of the screen and checking the antenna connectivity, and of course, I ended up thinking that the movie was a lot more feministic than it actually was. Because I was drooling at the sight of an angry, powerful heroine in a Hindi movie, physically fighting off the bad guys, I didn’t notice that she seemed to be needing major help from a man even if she was a ‘hero’.

And amma then told me that the grey blob was supposed to be Shatrughan Sinha, and was in this hapless unaesthetic form because of the then-upcoming elections. He was a political candidate, and Doordarshan needed, of course, to do what government-sponsored media has to do, and be ‘strictly neutral’. It ended up being hilariously tragic.

Now look at this:

…..Lautenberg, who loaned his Senate campaign $1.7 million, contends in a
letter to the Federal Election Commission that the provision should be rendered moot by a June Supreme Court ruling overturning a McCain-Feingold provision known as the Millionaire’s Amendment.
The Court found that the amendment, which allowed opponents of self-funding
candidates to accept larger contributions, infringed on wealthy candidates’ free
speech rights. And Lautenberg’s lawyer asserts in the letter that the $250,000
loan repayment cap “is constitutionally suspect under the Court’s ruling.”If the
FEC agrees with Lautenberg, that would “absolutely” clear Clinton to repay her
loans well after the convention, said Jason Torchinsky, a campaign finance
lawyer for the failed presidential bid of Republican Rudy Giuliani.

Torchinsky said if Lautenberg gets the all-clear, Clinton would be able to gradually pay herself back from funds raised by her presidential committee or her 2012 Senate reelection committee.“Whether she will do that politically is another question
that she probably won’t answer for awhile,” Torchinsky said.

Clinton has scheduled debt-retirement fundraisers for after the convention, but neither her campaign’s spokesman nor its general counsel responded to e-mails asking if the campaign would take advantage if Lautenberg gets his way.

Categories: Uncategorized
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: