Rick Scott
Jul. 24th, 2010 11:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
A judge threw Rick Scott's case out of court for not having merit so he's appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal in Atlanta that Florida giving money to his competitor violates his free speech rights.
Isn't it interesting that a man campaigning against government wasting tax payer money is in fact...using up court resources and wasting tax payer money?
But I suppose when you're a millionaire, you feel the world should revolve around you.
Isn't it interesting that a man campaigning against government wasting tax payer money is in fact...using up court resources and wasting tax payer money?
But I suppose when you're a millionaire, you feel the world should revolve around you.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-25 05:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-25 05:52 am (UTC)It's Scott's fault that he spent all of that cap so soon. He didn't need to have at least three commercials every commercial break. Sometimes, it has felt like every other commercial on local tv is from him.
He is also trying to say it impedes his free speech which makes no sense at all to me. He can say anything he wants. This is only allowing his competitor to have that same courtesy.
I hate his competitor as well, but it just feels like Scott is trying to buy this election which I doubt the founding fathers had in mind.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-25 05:56 am (UTC)But it doesn't matter about the cap. Why should the competitor get double the money? Like I said, I can understand matching the payments (sort of. I think if you can't raise it yourself or pay for it yourself you aren't entitled to anything else), but the law (if I understand correctly) not only matches but doubles the amount his competitor receives.
How is that fair?
no subject
Date: 2010-07-25 06:06 am (UTC)I get how it seems weird in a campaign finance reform way, but I don't see how that fall under Free Speech rather than campaign finance reform. Scott sued and appealed on grounds of his free speech being impeded.
Right off hand, I think this law goes back to when we had equal time for opponents. Television was legally required to have both views. If you had one candidate, you would have to have the other one or you'd get in trouble. Then, we got cable television and the industry began to be deregulated.