Why can't I sell my vote?

[KarlGauss]

Given that voting is still done anonymously, a number of people here have asked 'how can anyone who buys your vote know who you ultimately vote for'. But, it can be more involved than that.

I think part of the justification for such laws was the realization that buying someone's vote might actually include impersonating him/her with a stand-in who would make the 'right' vote. Or, and still liable to surprise defections, I admit, people could have been provided with a pre-marked ballot (or a reasonable facsimile thereof).

No cites.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by doorhinge

As with most laws, our elected representatives can change the laws.

They tried to, with members from both parties collaborating on BCRA 2005. However, certain provisions in it were held to be unconstitutional.

What I don't get is whether it would be legal to pay voters to complete a Likert scale on how happy they were for voting for one particular candidate, as doing so would be paying them to express a political opinion.

I also don't understand why it's constitutional to limit campaign contributions, since, like with PACs, the majority of funds from both PACs and campaigns are expended on electioneering communications.

[Backcountry Medic]

There isn't any good reason why citizens can't sell their votes and they frequently do. It just can't be a direct cash transaction. In fact, I would say almost every election hinges largely on which cantidate promises to give each person more money in their pocket, usually in the form of tax breaks. And it isn't like our elected representatives don't scurry right off to Washington and sell their votes to whoever promises to give them the most cash as well. Welcome to America.

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by doorhinge

As with most laws, our elected representatives can change the laws.

Not in this case. The USSC has stated that to change this situation, our elected representatives have to change the Constitution. Which means *my* representatives need 3/4's of the other members of Congress and 2/3's of the states. All so BP and BoA can't buy votes.

It's a great system if your last name is Koch.

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

Not in this case. The USSC has stated that to change this situation, our elected representatives have to change the Constitution. Which means *my* representatives need 3/4's of the other members of Congress and 2/3's of the states. All so BP and BoA can't buy votes.

It's a great system if your last name is Koch.

George Soros hasn't had any trouble gaming the system for the last few decades.

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by doorhinge

George Soros hasn't had any trouble gaming the system for the last few decades.

Fair enough. Even though he's on my side, I don't like what he's doing either. It may be a case of bringing a gun to a gun fight, but I still don't like it.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by doorhinge

Allowing someone to buy someone elses vote, the actual vote itself (the marking of the ballot), undermines the democratic process of one person, one vote.

No more than allowing unlimited expenditure on campaign spending by the wealthy elite undermines the democratic process.

It's been decided, and backed up by law, that trying to INFLUENCE how people will vote is permissable as long as you aren't actually directly compensating a person for their vote.

The issue is not what the law is, that's settled for the moment. The issue is, under what circumstances does spending money fall under the First Amendment freedom of speech clause? I find it very suspicious that advocates of the Citizens United decision see spending money as virtually the same as speech, except in the one case that involves something that is already established as clearly illegal, i.e., buying votes, at which point it MAGICALLY becomes something other than speech, or at least, something that can be restricted, unlike other forms of spending. It is EXACTLY the approach I would expect someone to take whose only real desire is to extend the power of the wealthy with regard to politics. It is certainly not internally consistent. Perhaps you could explain to me this different quality that money has when it is used to buy votes outright, as opposed to buying media.

As with most laws, our elected representatives can change the laws.

Why should they, when the ones who are elected are the ones who are bought and paid for?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

Fair enough. Even though he's on my side, I don't like what he's doing either. It may be a case of bringing a gun to a gun fight, but I still don't like it.

What exactly don't you like about it?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

No more than allowing unlimited expenditure on campaign spending by the wealthy elite undermines the democratic process.

It's NOT "campaign" spending. That implies that the money is going to the candidates' campaigns. This is money spent on speech about politics.

The issue is not what the law is, that's settled for the moment. The issue is, under what circumstances does spending money fall under the First Amendment freedom of speech clause? I find it very suspicious that advocates of the Citizens United decision see spending money as virtually the same as speech, except in the one case that involves something that is already established as clearly illegal, i.e., buying votes, at which point it MAGICALLY becomes something other than speech, or at least, something that can be restricted, unlike other forms of spending.

And I find it absolutely amazing that you can't accept the obvious distinction between spending money on speech and spending money on something that isn't speech.

If I spend money on toothpaste, that's different from spending money on heroin. One is legal, the other isn't. No magic necessary. There are legal distinctions between spending the money in different ways.

It is EXACTLY the approach I would expect someone to take whose only real desire is to extend the power of the wealthy with regard to politics.

Circumstantial ad hominem.

It is certainly not internally consistent. Perhaps you could explain to me this different quality that money has when it is used to buy votes outright, as opposed to buying media.

One buys votes, the other buys media.

Really simple.

Why should they, when the ones who are elected are the ones who are bought and paid for?

They aren't bought and paid for. Bribery is illegal.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

Not in this case. The USSC has stated that to change this situation, our elected representatives have to change the Constitution. Which means *my* representatives need 3/4's of the other members of Congress and 2/3's of the states. All so BP and BoA can't buy votes.

It's a great system if your last name is Koch.

The voters decide who is elected, not the Koch's. If the current reps are doing what the Koch's want instead of the voters, they can replace them with someone else.

[Really Not All That Bright]

So... everything is peachy?

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

I find it very suspicious that advocates of the Citizens United decision see spending money as virtually the same as speech, except in the one case that involves something that is already established as clearly illegal, i.e., buying votes, at which point it MAGICALLY becomes something other than speech, or at least, something that can be restricted, unlike other forms of spending.... Perhaps you could explain to me this different quality that money has when it is used to buy votes outright, as opposed to buying media.

Seriously, are you just not reading what has been explained multiple times in this thread about this "money equals speech" strawman? Or are you just ignoring those posts? Why would explaining yet another time be of benefit to you?

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

It's NOT "campaign" spending. That implies that the money is going to the candidates' campaigns. This is money spent on speech about politics.

No, the money is spent on buying media to broadcast speech about politics. The actual ads are relatively inexpensive. And all campaigns buy media for that purpose, it's a basic thing they do.

And I find it absolutely amazing that you can't accept the obvious distinction between spending money on speech and spending money on something that isn't speech.

Strange, I find it absolutely amazing that you cannot see the clear and present danger that unlimited political spending by the wealthy elite (and in secret, too) poses to democracy.

If I spend money on toothpaste, that's different from spending money on heroin. One is legal, the other isn't. No magic necessary. There are legal distinctions between spending the money in different ways.

You're just going back to "it's illegal" which does not work, since I specifically said that that was not the issue. I am trying to figure out WHY money spent directly to buy votes is different from money spent to buy media. If money spent on speech is speech as you say, how is buying a vote not a form of speech. It seems like the most direct form of advocacy imaginable.

Circumstantial ad hominem.

Not at all. You present one set of motives for your approach to money in politics, I see another set of motives that would produce exactly the same approach that you take. It's reasonable to point that out.

One buys votes, the other buys media.

And what differentiates the role of money in those transactions to make it regulatable in one case and an inviolable sacrosanct First Amendment right in the other?

They aren't bought and paid for. Bribery is illegal.

Yes, and rich men write half million dollar checks without having a very specific response they are looking for from the recipient. Riiiiight.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Seriously, are you just not reading what has been explained multiple times in this thread about this "money equals speech" strawman? Or are you just ignoring those posts? Why would explaining yet another time be of benefit to you?

I have yet to find an explanation that makes sense. "It is illegal to buy votes" is a matter of law, not logic. "It is aiding speech in the case of buying media but not when it is used to buy votes directly" makes no sense ... the money used to buy a vote is being used to sway the voter in the most direct way imaginable. "Vote for candidate A and you will be 50 dollars richer!" is speech.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

No, the money is spent on buying media to broadcast speech about politics. The actual ads are relatively inexpensive. And all campaigns buy media for that purpose, it's a basic thing they do.

Yes, to buy ads and ad time. Goes without saying.

Strange, I find it absolutely amazing that you cannot see the clear and present danger that unlimited political spending by the wealthy elite (and in secret, too) poses to democracy.

Pointing to election results and calling them a danger to democracy is absurd.

You're just going back to "it's illegal" which does not work, since I specifically said that that was not the issue. I am trying to figure out WHY money spent directly to buy votes is different from money spent to buy media. If money spent on speech is speech as you say, how is buying a vote not a form of speech. It seems like the most direct form of advocacy imaginable.

Because voting isn't speech. You can't simply try to define it as speech by calling vote-buying "advocacy."

If you buy a banana, that's buying a fruit. If you buy a TV, that's not buying a fruit.

Not at all. You present one set of motives for your approach to money in politics, I see another set of motives that would produce exactly the same approach that you take. It's reasonable to point that out.

No, it's not reasonable. It's a circumstantial ad hominem. It's an irrelevant fallacy.

And what differentiates the role of money in those transactions to make it regulatable in one case and an inviolable sacrosanct First Amendment right in the other?

The fact that one buys votes, and the other buys media. One is speech, and one is not speech.

Speech. Not speech.

Very simple.

Yes, and rich men write half million dollar checks without having a very specific response they are looking for from the recipient. Riiiiight.

Of course they have a reason. It's not relevant. They have a constitutional right to say whatever they want, for any reason, and spend money saying it. Just like anyone else.

(And let's leave race out of it).

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

I have yet to find an explanation that makes sense. "It is illegal to buy votes" is a matter of law, not logic. "It is aiding speech in the case of buying media but not when it is used to buy votes directly" makes no sense ... the money used to buy a vote is being used to sway the voter in the most direct way imaginable. "Vote for candidate A and you will be 50 dollars richer!" is speech.

I will go through this very slowly again.

Just because money is spent on something does not make it speech. Money spent on buying illegal weapons is not protected by the Second Amendment; in just the same way, money spent on bribes to politicians is not protected by the First Amendment. Just because money is involved, the activity cannot be presumed to be covered by constitutional protections.

Political speech is given broad protections by the First Amendment. Because actual political speech is protected, it follows that attempts to regulate money may have the effect of restricting speech and may be impermissible. I don't totally agree with this view, because I think reasonable restrictions on campaign contributions and campaign activity are not burdensome restrictions on speech and have a great benefit in discouraging a corrupting influence of money in elections. However, the principle isn't that hard to understand: the government must be very careful when it attempts to restrict speech by means of restricting the use of money.

There is no convincing case, either in law or by logic, that voting is speech.The First Amendment does not mention voting in any way. Speech and voting are dealt with in different provisions of the Constitution. Speech and voting are carried out in substantially different ways: speech is generally spontaneous and voting is not (I can publish something any time I want, I can only vote when the government has organized an election. Only certain people may vote, generally everyone enjoys free speech (political opinions are not restricted to adult citizens who are not convicted felons). Speech is public, voting is done in private.

Just because there are aspects of elections that are bad today, does not mean that it is okay to make things worse. In one breath we hear complaints about the corruption of politics with money and how Citizens United is a terrible decision, and then in the next breath we hear that we should throw ALL the rules out the window and let people be paid to vote. This is not a reasonable argument. Just because I drink an unhealthy soda every now and then is not a justification for me to take up unhealthy activities like heroin, smoking, and Russian roulette. Furthermore, if you are going to complain that drinking soda (adding more money money to politics) is a terrible activity, why on earth are you saying that drinking ten times more soda (adding more money to politics) than is currently the case is a justifiable activity?

[lance strongarm]

Well put.

To both disagree with you and to clarify:

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Political speech is given broad protections by the First Amendment. Because actual political speech is protected, it follows that attempts to regulate money may have the effect of restricting speech and may be impermissible. I don't totally agree with this view, because I think reasonable restrictions on campaign contributions and campaign activity are not burdensome restrictions on speech and have a great benefit in discouraging a corrupting influence of money in elections.

The purpose of any restriction on spending on speech is nothing more than to restrict the speech itself. The claim is that the speech is excessive, or that it should not come from a certain source. That is why restrictions on money spent on speech are not permissible.

Restrictions on campaign contributions are not restrictions on speech. Their purpose is not to restrict how much speech a candidate has. They are, for that reason, constitutional. Restrictions on spending by a candidate ("campaign activity"), like those on anyone else, are not constitutional, because they restrict speech.

Restrictions on spending on speech have no relation to corruption either. Spending money on speech is simply spending it on speech - no corruption involved, unless there is coordination with a campaign to evade contribution limits. Contributions, on the other hand, clearly have a logical connection with corruption and can be (and are) limited.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I will go through this very slowly again.

Just because money is spent on something does not make it speech. Money spent on buying illegal weapons is not protected by the Second Amendment; in just the same way, money spent on bribes to politicians is not protected by the First Amendment. Just because money is involved, the activity cannot be presumed to be covered by constitutional protections.

I completely agree. Money is not speech, nor entitled to the same constitutional protections that speech is.

Political speech is given broad protections by the First Amendment. Because actual political speech is protected, it follows that attempts to regulate money may have the effect of restricting speech and may be impermissible.

My thought is that if you can regulate money to prevent people from using it to buy votes, you may regulate it in other ways to prevent it posing a direct threat to democracy, as for example in the case of unlimited secret contributions to SuperPACs.

I don't totally agree with this view, because I think reasonable restrictions on campaign contributions and campaign activity are not burdensome restrictions on speech and have a great benefit in discouraging a corrupting influence of money in elections. However, the principle isn't that hard to understand: the government must be very careful when it attempts to restrict speech by means of restricting the use of money.

I agree, so long as the regulations address a threat to the democratic process and are not crafted so as to favor one group over another. A simple cap on contribution sizes, for example, would solve the whole SuperPAC problem in a trice.

There is no convincing case, either in law or by logic, that voting is speech.The First Amendment does not mention voting in any way. Speech and voting are dealt with in different provisions of the Constitution. Speech and voting are carried out in substantially different ways: speech is generally spontaneous and voting is not (I can publish something any time I want, I can only vote when the government has organized an election. Only certain people may vote, generally everyone enjoys free speech (political opinions are not restricted to adult citizens who are not convicted felons). Speech is public, voting is done in private.

The act of voting may not be speech, but the act of using money to sway a voter into voting your way could reasonably be seen as an analog to speech. I personally think this poses a direct threat to democracy and am comfortable with regulations that deny everyone the ability to buy votes, but I don't see any reason to pretend that buying votes with money is not analogous to speech.

Just because there are aspects of elections that are bad today, does not mean that it is okay to make things worse. In one breath we hear complaints about the corruption of politics with money and how Citizens United is a terrible decision, and then in the next breath we hear that we should throw ALL the rules out the window and let people be paid to vote. This is not a reasonable argument. Just because I drink an unhealthy soda every now and then is not a justification for me to take up unhealthy activities like heroin, smoking, and Russian roulette. Furthermore, if you are going to complain that drinking soda (adding more money money to politics) is a terrible activity, why on earth are you saying that drinking ten times more soda (adding more money to politics) than is currently the case is a justifiable activity?

My point is that if we throw away the rules about regulating money wrt Citizens United because money used to further political causes is speech, we should be consistent and allow vote-buying too. I personally think it would be far wiser to ban voting buying and put a cap on campaign, PAC and SuperPAC donations.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

I completely agree. Money is not speech, nor entitled to the same constitutional protections that speech is.

Money isn't protected. The act of spending money on speech is protected. It's part of the speech itself.

My thought is that if you can regulate money to prevent people from using it to buy votes, you may regulate it in other ways to prevent it posing a direct threat to democracy, as for example in the case of unlimited secret contributions to SuperPACs.

You need to stop thinking about the money, and start thinking about what is done with the money. Money is a thing; spending it is an action. The action is what matters.

I agree, so long as the regulations address a threat to the democratic process and are not crafted so as to favor one group over another. A simple cap on contribution sizes, for example, would solve the whole SuperPAC problem in a trice.

Just as a I have a right to spend my money on, say, a newspaper ad without limits, I have a right to go to my neighbor and ask if he wants to chip in to buy an even bigger ad. It's freedom of association. I have the right to form a group and act as a group, including political activities such as speech. That's why you can't distinguish between donations and spending when it comes to speech, and why donations to groups like Super PACs can't be limited.

The act of voting may not be speech, but the act of using money to sway a voter into voting your way could reasonably be seen as an analog to speech.

Well, no, it can't. It's laughable, in fact. You sound like a lawyer trying to get his client off with a whacky theory he knows won't work, but has to try. "Your honor, my client was exercising his first amendment speech rights when he bribed that politician."

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

The act of voting may not be speech, but the act of using money to sway a voter into voting your way could reasonably be seen as an analog to speech.

No, it cannot be at all. Just because money is used for something doesn't mean it is speech. Slipping a juror $100 in cash is not an analog to a convincing closing statement. Money and speech aren't freely interchangeable, speech and voting aren't freely interchangeable, voting and money aren't freely interchangeable.

My point is that if we throw away the rules about regulating money wrt Citizens United because money used to further political causes is speech, we should be consistent and allow vote-buying too. I personally think it would be far wiser to ban voting buying and put a cap on campaign, PAC and SuperPAC donations.

What is with this endless repetition of a false dilemma? Either we go back to the pre-Citizens United days (which is fine with me), or we proactively advocate the total and complete corruption of the electoral process with money flowing everywhere completely free of any regulation at all?

Do you hold similar opinions on other public policy issues? Like, since it is legal to own firearms for self-defense, we "should be consistent" and allow people to own anti-personnel landmines, too? Since some states allow for medicinal marijuana use, do you think they "should be consistent" and also allow for "medicinal" (wink-wink, nudge nudge) use of PCP and crack? Since it is already a social norm to tip waiters and taxicab drivers for good service, maybe we "should be consistent" and legalize the tipping of politicians for good service to their constituents?

I cannot help but think of the aphorism about foolish consistency being a hobgoblin. Consistency is no substitute for judgment.

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

No more than allowing unlimited expenditure on campaign spending by the wealthy elite undermines the democratic process.



The issue is not what the law is, that's settled for the moment. The issue is, under what circumstances does spending money fall under the First Amendment freedom of speech clause? I find it very suspicious that advocates of the Citizens United decision see spending money as virtually the same as speech, except in the one case that involves something that is already established as clearly illegal, i.e., buying votes, at which point it MAGICALLY becomes something other than speech, or at least, something that can be restricted, unlike other forms of spending. It is EXACTLY the approach I would expect someone to take whose only real desire is to extend the power of the wealthy with regard to politics. It is certainly not internally consistent. Perhaps you could explain to me this different quality that money has when it is used to buy votes outright, as opposed to buying media.



Why should they, when the ones who are elected are the ones who are bought and paid for?

How would you rein in the politically biased pundits on NBC/MSNBC, ABC, etc? Many of the shows being broadcast are really nothing more than 30 or 60 minute campaign ads. Do you restrict them or allow others to respond as best they can?

If you want to prevent a person or corporation from spending money to influence an election, that would include the media outlets.

You can personally spend $100 or $1 million to influence an election but you can't pay someone to vote for your choice of candidate.

Congress wrote campaign fianance laws. Congress rewrote campaign fianance laws. The Supreme Court ruled that specific parts of the laws that CONGRESS wrote and passed are unconstitutional.

Congress can write another, better, "constitutional" campaign fianance law. Blaming the SCOTUS for Congress's failures isn't going to get better laws passed.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by doorhinge

How would you rein in the politically biased pundits on NBC/MSNBC, ABC, etc? Many of the shows being broadcast are really nothing more than 30 or 60 minute campaign ads. Do you restrict them or allow others to respond as best they can?

If you want to prevent a person or corporation from spending money to influence an election, that would include the media outlets.

Yeah, I find it funny that people think renting 30 seconds on a TV station is pure evil, but buying the whole damn network and spewing political opinions all day is just fine.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

That implies that the money is going to the candidates' campaigns.

LA Times is capable of classifying SuperPAC expenditure as supporting or opposing a candidate. It doesn't seem particularly difficult.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

This is money spent on speech about politics. One is legal, the other isn't.

Would it be censorship if the FCC refused to air a bought and paid for marijuana decriminalisation ad from a Green/Libertarian candidate on a children's channel?

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

One buys votes, the other buys media.

What about in my hypothetical exit poll bribe, where claiming to vote for a candidate and saying why is rewarded?

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

That is why restrictions on money spent on speech are not permissible.

Hrmm.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Restrictions on campaign contributions are not restrictions on speech. Their purpose is not to restrict how much speech a candidate has.

That may not be the purpose, but it is the effect, as the majority of a candidate's funds go towards electioneering communications. Just like if there were a 90% tax on all SuperPAC transactions. All the money could go towards the Federal Debt and the effect would remain the same.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

no corruption involved

Yeah, none whatsoever.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

It's freedom of association.

Doesn't hold up, else we could freely choose to associate in our campaign contributions too.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by doorhinge

How would you rein in the politically biased pundits on NBC/MSNBC, ABC, etc? Many of the shows being broadcast are really nothing more than 30 or 60 minute campaign ads. Do you restrict them or allow others to respond as best they can?

Show me how that's relevant. Also I don't accept your premises. Both channels have their favorites, but the shows are far from campaign ads. Frex, a lot of coverage today has been about Jerry Sandusky, which is, well ... irrelevant ... to the campaigns of both Obama and Romney.

If you want to prevent a person or corporation from spending money to influence an election, that would include the media outlets.

That is a separate issue.

You can personally spend $100 or $1 million to influence an election but you can't pay someone to vote for your choice of candidate.

No I can't. I don't have $1 million. If I had $1 million it would be irresponsible of me to spend it all on a campaign donation. Very, very, very few Americans have that kind of money.

Congress wrote campaign fianance laws. Congress rewrote campaign fianance laws. The Supreme Court ruled that specific parts of the laws that CONGRESS wrote and passed are unconstitutional.

Congress can write another, better, "constitutional" campaign fianance law. Blaming the SCOTUS for Congress's failures isn't going to get better laws passed.[/quote]

Blaming the SCOTUS for decisions so badly considered that they undermine the very foundations of democracy seems a reasonable pursuit to me.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

No, it cannot be at all. Just because money is used for something doesn't mean it is speech. Slipping a juror $100 in cash is not an analog to a convincing closing statement. Money and speech aren't freely interchangeable, speech and voting aren't freely interchangeable, voting and money aren't freely interchangeable.

We are agreed. The bulk of my disagreement is with Lance, who maintains that money spent on speech is protected by the First Amendment, because when it's spent on speech, it magically becomes speech.

What is with this endless repetition of a false dilemma? Either we go back to the pre-Citizens United days (which is fine with me), or we proactively advocate the total and complete corruption of the electoral process with money flowing everywhere completely free of any regulation at all?

My point is that if you believe as Lance does, it's internally inconsistent to cavil at vote-buying. I do not think money is speech. I do not think money spent on speech is protected by the First Amendment.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

We are agreed. The bulk of my disagreement is with Lance, who maintains that money spent on speech is protected by the First Amendment, because when it's spent on speech, it magically becomes speech.

In a general proposition, he's right. For the most part, laws can't get around constitutional challenges for restraining speech by claiming they are only restricting money. As an example, do you really think the government could pass a law saying that no newspaper is allowed to have annual sales of more than $1 million? The law doesn't say that the newspaper can't be printed, and it is only restricting money. But the nexus between the limitation on money and the impact on speech is totally obvious. Of course there would be a very serious First Amendment violation there.

My point is that if you believe as Lance does, it's internally inconsistent to cavil at vote-buying. I do not think money is speech.

It isn't inconsistent at all because buying TV ads is not analogous to buying votes. We've been through his five times already!

Lance also agrees that money, by itself, is not speech, and yet you keep trotting out this straw man, after we explain time and again that laws that restrict speech by restricting money are on very thin ice as far as the First Amendment goes.

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

Show me how that's relevant. Also I don't accept your premises. Both channels have their favorites, but the shows are far from campaign ads. Frex, a lot of coverage today has been about Jerry Sandusky, which is, well ... irrelevant ... to the campaigns of both Obama and Romney.

.....That is a separate issue.

.....Blaming the SCOTUS for decisions so badly considered that they undermine the very foundations of democracy seems a reasonable pursuit to me.

Discussing Sandusky is irrelevant if you're talking about political speech. Network spokemodels incessantly describing Party "A" as good and Party "B" as bad is political speech. If you intend to limit political speech then you'll have to include the media outlets that provide positive coverage for one side, including running political ads as "news" in addition to running the political ads as actual ads.

How is a SCOTUS decision badly considered when they find that the half-fast bills created by Congress are unconstitutional? Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. Congress should have done a better job of writing, debating, and passing the bill.

You're blaming the critic for panning a bad performance by an actor. It's up to the actor to provide a better performance or the ticket buying public won't buy tickets. Replacing the incompetent actor with another actor that the ticket buying public approves of, is another option.

Congress can still write another campaign fianance law and maybe this time it will actually be constitutional. Or the voters can elect representatives who can write constitutional bills.

[Evil Captor]

Let's inject a note of reailty into this discussion. When Lance defends the right of corporations and rich people to make unlimited campaign donations through SuperPACs, he is defending the right of corporations to buy our legislators. For example, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, which recently paid a $3 billion fine for inappropriate sales techniques used to promote Advair. One instance was:

4) "God save political donations."

In 2006, Arkansas Medicaid restricted its coverage in off-label use of Advair by requiring that patients try another medication first. "Arkansas Medicaid determined that this restriction increased appropriate use of Advair and decreased Advair utilization by 25% without adverse impact on patient care," the US complaint reads. GSK then allegedly gave an untold sum of campaign donation dollars to an Arkansas lawmaker who introduced legislation to get rid of the restriction. "God save political donations," wrote one GSK employee to senior VP Stan Hull in an internal email.

Source: Mother Jones article

"God save political donations." These are your allies, this is the company you keep.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by doorhinge

You're blaming the critic for panning a bad performance by an actor.

No, the actor got a standing ovation for this one performance. However, if one squints, it turns out that their lines have to be written by the Actor's Guild and the critic is angry that this performance skipped that.

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

No, the actor got a standing ovation for this one performance. However, if one squints, it turns out that their lines have to be written by the Actor's Guild and the critic is angry that this performance skipped that.

Then the Actor's Guild should have written a better, constitutional law in the first place.

Congress can still write another campaign fianance law and maybe this time it will actually be constitutional. Or the voters can elect representatives who can write constitutional bills.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

LA Times is capable of classifying SuperPAC expenditure as supporting or opposing a candidate. It doesn't seem particularly difficult.

1. Journalists frequently get this wrong too.
2. This isn't about whether it supports or opposes a candidate, it's about whether it is a donation to a candidate.

Would it be censorship if the FCC refused to air a bought and paid for marijuana decriminalisation ad from a Green/Libertarian candidate on a children's channel?

You're playing the "exceptions" game again. That exception has a rational basis (the public owns the airwaves and can regulate them) that your exception doesn't have.

What about in my hypothetical exit poll bribe, where claiming to vote for a candidate and saying why is rewarded?

What about it? Would it be legal, you mean?

That may not be the purpose, but it is the effect, as the majority of a candidate's funds go towards electioneering communications. Just like if there were a 90% tax on all SuperPAC transactions. All the money could go towards the Federal Debt and the effect would remain the same.

Okay.

Doesn't hold up, else we could freely choose to associate in our campaign contributions too.

Donating to a campaign is not a constitutional right though. Speech is.

See how that works?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

Let's inject a note of reailty into this discussion. When Lance defends the right of corporations and rich people to make unlimited campaign donations through SuperPACs, he is defending the right of corporations to buy our legislators.

That's a stupid, unsupported, vague comment.

Define "buying a legislator." Try to do it in a way that doesn't also criminalize all kinds of things, including speech and voting itself. You can't.

Also tell us who is selling. If someone is buying something, you have to have a seller.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

I do not think money is speech. I do not think money spent on speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Would appreciate answers to these questions:

Do you think money spent on religion is protected by the First Amendment? Could the government ban all spending (or buying or donating) of money on religious activities? Ban the buying or selling of Bibles? Ban spending money to build churches? They could copy Bibles by hand and give them away, as long as they don't spend money.

Do you think money spent on the press is protected by the First Amendment? Could the government ban the sale or newspapers, or ban newspapers from buying paper or ink or paying reporters? They could publish all they want, as long as they don't spend money.

Do you think money spent on abortion is protected under Roe v. Wade? (If you don't agree with Roe itself, pretend you do for a moment.) Could the government ban the payment of doctors for abortion services, requiring any abortions to be performed for free?

Do you think money spent on legal representation is protected by the Sixth Amendment? Could the government ban anyone from giving or taking money to represent someone in court? Lawyer who agree to work for free would be the only kind you could have to represent you?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

We are agreed. The bulk of my disagreement is with Lance, who maintains that money spent on speech is protected by the First Amendment, because when it's spent on speech, it magically becomes speech.

No, it does not magically become speech. It's still money. Spending money on speech is protected like the speech, but not because it magically becomes speech. It's not the money that matters, it's the act of spending it - on speech.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

Show me how that's relevant.

Really?

Also I don't accept your premises. Both channels have their favorites, but the shows are far from campaign ads.

You should watch Fox.

But, hey, what if they were? Suppose Fox just decided to stop pretending and just run the equivalent of campaign ads all day. Could the government shut that down?

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

What about it? Would it be legal, you mean?

Yup.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

the public owns the airwaves and can regulate them

Even when the speech is political in nature?

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Donating to a campaign is not a constitutional right though. Speech is.

Donating to a SuperPAC is not a constitutional right, speech is.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

If someone is buying something, you have to have a seller.

Blame Congress for the fact that businesses are buying politicians, the Tea Party tactic.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Yup.

I doubt it would be legal.

Even when the speech is political in nature?

Yes, but subject to certain limits. The regulations must have a good reason that doesn't involve an attempt to limit the amount of speech, the content, or who can speak.

Donating to a SuperPAC is not a constitutional right, speech is.

Spending money on speech is a right. Donating money to a group that is going to spend it on speech is a right.

Blame Congress for the fact that businesses are buying politicians, the Tea Party tactic.

Voters should stop electing candidates who are "bought."

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

I doubt it would be legal.

Why not?

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Yes, but subject to certain limits. The regulations must have a good reason that doesn't involve an attempt to limit the amount of speech, the content, or who can speak.

I agree, this is clearly a time place and manner restriction.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Spending money on speech is a right. Donating money to a group that is going to spend it on speech is a right.

and a candidate's campaign team spends money on speech.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Voters should stop electing candidates who are "bought."

They're trying to change the system. Reasonable alterations are opposed at every step though.

[MrDurden]

Whether or not it's legal to sell your vote is immaterial considering that it's certainly illegal for any candidate to buy it. Otherwise the richest guy would always win.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Why not?

It was discussed above. Someone could award votes in certain regions to boost turnout.

I agree, this is clearly a time place and manner restriction.

It's not even remotely close to one.

and a candidate's campaign team spends money on speech.

And limits on spending by campaigns are also unconstitutional. And the courts said so 40 years ago.

They're trying to change the system. Reasonable alterations are opposed at every step though.

Violations of the First Amendment are not "reasonable."

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

.....They're trying to change the system. Reasonable alterations are opposed at every step though.

Who says these are "reasonable" alterations? You? Are you trying to restrict everyone's speech or just those you diagree with? Should NBC/MSNBC or ABC or FOX be allowed to throw softball questions to their candidate of choice and grill the opposition mercilessly? Media corporation should be allowed to support their candidates but those "other" coprorations shouldn't be allowed to support any candidate. You can put a sign in your yard but a collection of pipefitters (aka a union) shouldn't be allowed to put a sign on their property? Where do you draw the line?

You can do it but "they" can't isn't a "reasonable alteration".

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Would appreciate answers to these questions:

Do you think money spent on religion is protected by the First Amendment?

No. Your question is so vague that it might mean that Scientologists funds used in a publicity campaign to convince everyone that Tom Cruise's ex-wives are devils would be protected.

Could the government ban all spending (or buying or donating) of money on religious activities? Ban the buying or selling of Bibles? Ban spending money to build churches? They could copy Bibles by hand and give them away, as long as they don't spend money.

This would seem to violate the wall of separation between church and state, another matter entirely.

Do you think money spent on the press is protected by the First Amendment?

Once again, very vague, not sure what you mean here. Is money used to buy printing presses for a newspaper protected by the First Amendment?

Could the government ban the sale or newspapers, or ban newspapers from buying paper or ink or paying reporters? They could publish all they want, as long as they don't spend money.

Nope.

Do you think money spent on abortion is protected under Roe v. Wade? (If you don't agree with Roe itself, pretend you do for a moment.) Could the government ban the payment of doctors for abortion services, requiring any abortions to be performed for free?

I'm not sure what is meant by "protected." I believe the government has no business interjecting itself between a woman and her doctor in such decisions. I would believe that Roe v. Wade or not.

Do you think money spent on legal representation is protected by the Sixth Amendment? Could the government ban anyone from giving or taking money to represent someone in court? Lawyer who agree to work for free would be the only kind you could have to represent you?

This actually sounds like a good idea ... the law is WAAAAAY skewed toward the rich as things are. Let me think about it. A public option for legal care as well as health care. This has possibilities!

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

No. Your question is so vague that it might mean that Scientologists funds used in a publicity campaign to convince everyone that Tom Cruise's ex-wives are devils would be protected.

Hence my specific examples.

This would seem to violate the wall of separation between church and state, another matter entirely.

Well, no, it's not another matter. It's money spent on a First Amendment right. It's exactly the same principle - spending money on a right.

So why can't the government declare that "money isn't religion" just like you like to say that "money isn't speech"?

Once again, very vague, not sure what you mean here. Is money used to buy printing presses for a newspaper protected by the First Amendment?

Yes. Is it?

Nope.

Why not? Money isn't the press, just like it isn't speech. Right?

Why is spending money on ink and paper protected, but not spending it on ads in a paper?

I'm not sure what is meant by "protected." I believe the government has no business interjecting itself between a woman and her doctor in such decisions. I would believe that Roe v. Wade or not.

So answer the question. Could the government say that it will not interject itself in such decisions - but at the same time ban spending money on abortion? Would you believe that banning the spending of money on abortion isn't an interference in the right to have an abortion?

This actually sounds like a good idea ... the law is WAAAAAY skewed toward the rich as things are. Let me think about it. A public option for legal care as well as health care. This has possibilities!

I'm disturbed by that, but not surprised.

First of all, I was talking about criminal representation - in other words, against the state, not rich private interests. The idea of limiting how much money you can spend to defend yourself from prosecution is offensive on so many levels, not just the classic liberal one. I'm disappointed in you.

Aside from the fact that it's also blatantly unconstitutional too, it's got the same problem that limits on speech based on "fairness" do - where do you draw the line? Since really poor people have effectively zero money to spend on speech, or legal representation, you'd have to set the cap at zero. After all, any time one side spends more, it's unfair. Right?

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

No. Your question is so vague that it might mean that Scientologists funds used in a publicity campaign to convince everyone that Tom Cruise's ex-wives are devils would be protected.

Are you implying that the government could prevent money from being spent by Scientologists to share their views of Katie Holmes?

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

It was discussed above.

Cite statute?

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Someone could award votes in certain regions to boost turnout.

Advertising is tailored to certain demographics too.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

It's not even remotely close to one.

So why is it permitted to limit that theoretical marijuana ad?

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

And the courts said so 40 years ago.

Cite the opinions?

Originally Posted by doorhinge

Who says these are "reasonable" alterations?

Majority of people, as per the poll I posted.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Cite statute?

I don't know the statute. I'm just basing my guess on what I've read on this thread, which you can do too.

Advertising is tailored to certain demographics too.

Advertising isn't bribery though.

So why is it permitted to limit that theoretical marijuana ad?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A...mercial_speech

Cite the opinions?

Buckley v. Valeo

Majority of people, as per the poll I posted.

Too bad. The First Amendment says they are not reasonable.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Buckley v. Valeo

I read some of the original text and some legal commentary. I have to say I understand the issue better after engaging with you in this thread. For instance, I think BCRA was pointless, given the Buckley v. Valeo precedent. Congress should have pushed for a constitutional amendment or court prohibition instead. Limits on individual expenditure on campaigns were held to be unconstitutional (thus collective, thus corporations), under strict or vague interpretation of FECA - 608(e). Your position isn't so much that corporations are not partisan, it's that any restrictions constitute a thread to our liberty. However, I cannot think of any limitations of corporate advocacy and I hold such advocacy to be both effective and antithetical to a democratic system. Nor can I simultaneously hold the premise that limitations on electioneering communications are unconstitutional while donations to campaigns are constitutional, since the expenditures are equivocal.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

The First Amendment says they are not reasonable.

According to about half the precedent of the Supreme Court, as opposed to the opinions of Congress and the public.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

I read some of the original text and some legal commentary. I have to say I understand the issue better after engaging with you in this thread. For instance, I think BCRA was pointless, given the Buckley v. Valeo precedent.

There you go.

Now, if you can please read it again, and this thread again, maybe you'll actually agree with the precedent.

Congress should have pushed for a constitutional amendment or court prohibition instead. Limits on individual expenditure on campaigns were held to be unconstitutional (thus collective, thus corporations), under strict or vague interpretation of FECA - 608(e). Your position isn't so much that corporations are not partisan, it's that any restrictions constitute a thread to our liberty. However, I cannot think of any limitations of corporate advocacy and I hold such advocacy to be both effective and antithetical to a democratic system.

Your holding is not a basis for violating the Constitution though. You would need to amend it. And such an amendment would have consequences far beyond what you seem to understand. It has nothing to do with corporations.

Nor can I simultaneously hold the premise that limitations on electioneering communications are unconstitutional while donations to campaigns are constitutional, since the expenditures are equivocal.

Again, if you feel that way, you must choose unlimited donations.

According to about half the precedent of the Supreme Court, as opposed to the opinions of Congress and the public.

Which is why we have courts.

You wouldn't want the people ruling on the Constitution any more than I would.

[gamerunknown]

[quote=lance strongarm]such an amendment would have consequences far beyond what you seem to understand./quote]

Care to elaborate?

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Again, if you feel that way, you must choose unlimited donations.

Care to delineate your own premises?

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

You wouldn't want the people ruling on the Constitution any more than I would.

Why do you hate democracy?

[lance strongarm]

[quote=gamerunknown;15301057][quote=lance strongarm]such an amendment would have consequences far beyond what you seem to understand./quote]

Care to elaborate?

Here is the first section of the most popular amendment out there ("Move to Amend"):

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

This abolishes the free speech rights of political parties, churches, and any political interest group like the AARP, NRA, ACLU, etc. - including the very groups trying to get it passed. It could also abolish all speech rights for anyone who used a group or corporation to espouse their views, such as through a film. Micheal Moore may have speech rights, but his distribution company wouldn't because it's not a person.

Care to delineate your own premises?

You can't choose limits on speech. If you're saying donations are speech, so be it.

Why do you hate democracy?

Why do you hate the Constitution?