Could Montana get the court to reconsider Citizens United?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

If I made the expenditure of large amounts of money on electioneering communications contingent on whether or not he promises to fix potholes on the streets, I'd think so.

I didn't ask that. I asked if you told him you would vote for him if he fixed the pothole, would it be corrupt.

Would it?

Not in a simple plurality system.

Why not?

Limiting donations to candidates doesn't suppress free speech, but limiting corporate expenditure directly on electoral communications does?

See my response elsewhere in this thread.

Ok, it was hyperbole. Apparently the least expensive winning campaign was $182k. Limiting campaigns to that amount would be unconstitutional though, right?

Yes.

(And pointless - that would pay for maybe ten minutes of air time in major markets.)

[adaher]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

No censorship, just limiting donations to SuperPACs just as donations are limited to PACS, to prevent donations so large they are defacto bribes. $250 seems reasonable. No particular form of speech is being forbidden, and no one is proposing any exceptions to such a limit. Call a thing what it is.

I can get behind that, but what happens when Sheldon Adelson just buys his own ads directly? You can't stop that anymore than you can stop Michael Moore from making his own films.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Why not?

Because of tactical voting, among other things.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Would it?

No, because a vote is an intangible. Corruption involves an exchange of values.Electioneering communications have a definite value.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Yes.

(And pointless - that would pay for maybe ten minutes of air time in major markets.)

It wouldn't be pointless if it limited public exposure, would it? There are similar limitations in the UK. Anyway, care to cite which clause or precedent indicates limiting campaign expenditure on electioneering communications is unconstitutional? Would it not follow that limiting donations to campaigns would be unconstitutional?

[adaher]

I'd cite the 1st amendment saying Congress shall make no law infringing on freedom of speech, but I'm sure we are all familiar with that one.

Money is not speech, but once money is used to buy speech, that speech is protected.

Constitutionally, you can limit donations. Money is not speech. But let's say that someone "illegally" buys and airs an ad? What do you do then? Censor it? Put that person in jail over it? That's pretty clearly an infringement on freedom of speech, because you are directly attacking the speech itself.

You can't attack funding as a way to get to speech you can't otherwise censor. If you could, politicians would have found a way to defund unfriendly media outlets long ago. Just tax all media corporations at a special rate of 80%, they'd never be able to publish. And since they are corporations, according to the anti-Citizens United logic, they don't have rights! So they can be legally legislated out of existence through the tax code.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Because of tactical voting, among other things.

Tactical voting is still a choice.

And it has nothing to do with money, or speech, or any of that anyway.

No, because a vote is an intangible. Corruption involves an exchange of values.Electioneering communications have a definite value.

So all communication about elections - all political speech - is potentially corrupt?

Wow.

It wouldn't be pointless if it limited public exposure, would it?

You might as well limit it to zero, that's the point.

Anyway, care to cite which clause or precedent indicates limiting campaign expenditure on electioneering communications is unconstitutional?

Buckley v. Valeo. 40 years ago.

Would it not follow that limiting donations to campaigns would be unconstitutional?

Possibly. You should go read Buckley.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by adaher

But let's say that someone "illegally" buys and airs an ad? What do you do then? Censor it? Put that person in jail over it? That's pretty clearly an infringement on freedom of speech, because you are directly attacking the speech itself.

Yep. The Citizen's United case involved the threat of prison time for someone daring to distribute a political film. In argument, the FEC's lawyers said the law allowed them to prosecute book publishers too, if the book was political and published by a corporation (as most are).

Prison for political films and books, in America.

[adaher]

And that's the other thing about Citizens United. BCRA applied to corporations and Citizens United struck down that limit. But the big "problem" right now isn't corporate money, it's billionaire money, and at least before this started happening, it was acknowledged by all that individuals had an absolute right to electioneer as much as they wanted. Now I see the campaign finance reformers moving the goalposts again. Now apparently individuals don't have the right to spend as much as they want on political speech. Which is a position that would be hard to get even one Supreme Court justice to rule in favor of. The idea that corporations don't have the same rights as individuals is intuitive, even if I think in practice it wouldn't work. But individuals do have rights, and your desire for less money in politics does not trump individuals' first amendment rights.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by adaher

And that's the other thing about Citizens United. BCRA applied to corporations and Citizens United struck down that limit. But the big "problem" right now isn't corporate money, it's billionaire money, and at least before this started happening, it was acknowledged by all that individuals had an absolute right to electioneer as much as they wanted. Now I see the campaign finance reformers moving the goalposts again. Now apparently individuals don't have the right to spend as much as they want on political speech. Which is a position that would be hard to get even one Supreme Court justice to rule in favor of. The idea that corporations don't have the same rights as individuals is intuitive, even if I think in practice it wouldn't work. But individuals do have rights, and your desire for less money in politics does not trump individuals' first amendment rights.

They move the goalposts because they don't even seem to understand that there are goalposts at all. They think they can simply claim any exception to the First Amendment, no matter how huge, because they really really really want it. If a rule is so full of holes that it can tolerate any exception, it's not a rule in the first place. That's why I find myself reminding these people that they "can't violate freedom of speech." Period. It's like they don't even understand that.

[adaher]

I do think that campaign finance reform is important, but I think reformers are confused about what the goal should be. To me, the goal is to avoid outright quid pro quo: interest group donates to campaign, politician returns the favor with earmarks or favorably regulations or something.

Limiting direct donations accomplished most of that goal. The soft money ban went even further. But what does stopping independent advocacy accomplish?

I think the gnashing of teeth over the California cigarette tax campaign is a good example. Reformers are angry that all this money was spent opposing a ballot initiative. But how is this corruption? Who is bribed by opposing or supporting a ballot intiative? A ballot initiative is not a candidate, a ballot initiative cannot return favors. It's either supported or it's not. The anger over that initiative betrays what the real goal apparently is: to have LESS speech overall. Politicians and the media enable this line of reasoning, because they have an interest. Politiicans don't actually like independent advocacy, they consider it interference in the campaign. And the media likes to have outsized power, power which is diminished when millionaires run ads questioning whatever the current media narrative is. So they convince well meaning people that if you're not a politician or a journalist, you really don't have the right to have a big influence on politics. It's even corruption for you to do so. But what makes Rachel Maddow or Bill O'Reilly better than Sheldon Adelson? They get an hour to push their point of view every day. Sheldon Adelson buys 30 seconds of airtime and this is a corruption issue?

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Tactical voting is still a choice.

Doesn't mean they like the millionaire candidate, nor that they're the first choice of theirs.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

And it has nothing to do with money, or speech, or any of that anyway.

It has a lot to do with representative democracy.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

So all communication about elections - all political speech - is potentially corrupt?

Yes, if there is a quid pro quo exchange of values. Anyway, the issue isn't so much whether there is corruption. This exchange of values certainly doesn't meet the legal definition of corruption. What is important is that money should not play a disproportionate role in “currying favours”.

Originally Posted by adaher

That's pretty clearly an infringement on freedom of speech, because you are directly attacking the speech itself.

No, it's the expenditure of money on speech. I can't break into someone's house to stick up a poster.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

You might as well limit it to zero, that's the point.

No, they should be entitled to express themselves. I just don't think that their influence on public discourse should be dependent on their wealth.

Originally Posted by adaher

Now apparently individuals don't have the right to spend as much as they want on political speech.

You say "now". The issue is prominent because of the incredible amounts being spend on electioneering communications, but a similar provision was in FECA.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

That's why I find myself reminding these people that they "can't violate freedom of speech." Period.

Which isn't true and never has been true.

Originally Posted by adaher

Limiting direct donations accomplished most of that goal.

Not so. Hell, one of the principle architects of campaign finance reform was involved in a major corruption scandal.

Originally Posted by adaher

And the media likes to have outsized power, power which is diminished when millionaires run ads questioning whatever the current media narrative is

Their power is by no means diminished by other corporations purchasing advertising time from them. If it were, they wouldn't sell it to them.

[adaher]

Expenditure of money on speech cannot be limited. That was established in Buckley v. Valeo. if expenditure of money on speech can be limited, then all speech except that which is spoken aloud without the aid of amplification can be regulated, and therefore we really don't have free speech at all.

You simply cannot get around the fact that if money is used to buy speech, an act of censorship must still take place to remove the illegal speech.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by adaher

You simply cannot get around the fact that if money is used to buy speech, an act of censorship must still take place to remove the illegal speech.

I see political advertising like graffiti on public airwaves, with a far more deleterious effect on public discourse.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Doesn't mean they like the millionaire candidate, nor that they're the first choice of theirs.

Of course not. Few people get their first choice of anything. That's a function of our voting system, with or without money involved.

What is important is that money should not play a disproportionate role in “currying favours”.

Sure. But you can't violate the Constitution in order to stop that.

No, it's the expenditure of money on speech. I can't break into someone's house to stick up a poster.

That's supposed to be an analogy?

No, they should be entitled to express themselves. I just don't think that their influence on public discourse should be dependent on their wealth.

You think. Good for you. You can vote accordingly. You don't get to decide whose influence on public discourse is proper. I don't like the fact that Rush Limbaugh has influence, but I won't go banning his show, or ban the spending of money on his show.

You say "now". The issue is prominent because of the incredible amounts being spend on electioneering communications, but a similar provision was in FECA.

And was promptly struck down too, as you know.

Which isn't true and never has been true.

Seriously, enough.

You can't violate freedom of speech in the blatant, sweeping way you would like to. Your proposed exception to free speech is completely unacceptable, and makes a joke of the First Amendment. If we accept your exception, we would have to accept just about any exception. It's incredibly broad and overreaching. It is not a narrow, logical exception like the others. It's nothing more than a violation of free speech.

Their power is by no means diminished by other corporations purchasing advertising time from them. If it were, they wouldn't sell it to them.

But that's why they are in business at all, to sell ads.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

I see political advertising like graffiti on public airwaves, with a far more deleterious effect on public discourse.

You may not declare that you can ban speech because it has a "deleterious effect on public discourse."

No.

You don't seem to get it. You can't just go banning speech because you don't like the effect of the speech. That's exactly what the First Amendment forbids.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

You may not declare that you can ban speech because it has a "deleterious effect on public discourse."

No.

You don't seem to get it. You can't just go banning speech because you don't like the effect of the speech. That's exactly what the First Amendment forbids.

I thought you could. Like if your speech causes a mad rush for the exits at a movie theatre or if the limits are narrowly tailored to pursue a valid public policy concern (corruption of the political process seems to be a pretty valid concern to me).

[adaher]

In order to justify speech restrictions, substantial harm must be caused by the speech. The supposed harm caused by campaign advertisements has not been proven, it's purely conjecture. And if ads are a problem, then ALL ads should be banned. Candidates are not privileged, with more 1st amendment rights than the rest of us. If the Kochs can't run an ad, if the NRA can't run an ad, then neither can Congressmen or Presidential candidates.

[scabpicker]

And if the commercials weren't one of the more inventive art forms on television, I'd be behind banning all advertising. Not to mention, this change really just creates a different problem. It moves to the question of: What amount of paying for a publication or program amounts to advertising?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by scabpicker

And if the commercials weren't one of the more inventive art forms on television, I'd be behind banning all advertising.

Cuz cameramen, writers, actors, set designers, makeup artists, stage managers, foley artists, sound editors, production managers, boom operators, costume designers etc - all these guys love to work for free.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by adaher

In order to justify speech restrictions, substantial harm must be caused by the speech. The supposed harm caused by campaign advertisements has not been proven, it's purely conjecture. And if ads are a problem, then ALL ads should be banned. Candidates are not privileged, with more 1st amendment rights than the rest of us. If the Kochs can't run an ad, if the NRA can't run an ad, then neither can Congressmen or Presidential candidates.

If we lose our democracy to the plutocrats because of SuperPAC money, we will probably not be able to just politely ask, "Can we please have our democracy back?" It will probably take bullets, and bloodshed. Is the game worth the candle?

[Untoward_Parable]

Originally Posted by scabpicker

And if the commercials weren't one of the more inventive art forms on television, I'd be behind banning all advertising. Not to mention, this change really just creates a different problem. It moves to the question of: What amount of paying for a publication or program amounts to advertising?

Commercials are inventive because they have the funding, so that's what creative people have to do if hey want to make decent money. It's disgusting and demeaning to humanity and the artists. We should stop letting irresponsible people with money pollute our planet with their propaganda and petty money grubbing.

Back to the OP: Screw the supreme partisans. The people need to amend the constitution, and vote in leaders not loyal to the D's or R's. Leaders that will do as the people instruct.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

That's a function of our voting system, with or without money involved.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Of course not. Few people get their first choice of anything.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

That's supposed to be an analogy?

Damn fine one at that. People decide they don't want some forms of political speech in their house if a person has to violate another law in order to utilise that speech. There are times, places and manners in which a person is not entitled to their speech.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

If we accept your exception, we would have to accept just about any exception.

Slippery slope.

[adaher]

Amending the 1st amendment is very dangerous. All of the proposed amendments I've seen either contradict themselves and render the amendment legally null and void, or they grant the government broad censorship powers over political speech.

Keep in mind, folks, the Founders didn't write the commerce clause to grant the federal government power to regulate anything tangentially connected to interstate commerce. If you give the federal government the power to regulate political speech, no matter how narrow you intend that power to be, it will grow into the power to censor nearly all speech, since a) nearly all speech that you don't utter with your own mouth is "paid for" in some small way, and b) nearly all speech can be connected with politics if you reach hard enough.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by adaher

Amending the 1st amendment is very dangerous. All of the proposed amendments I've seen either contradict themselves and render the amendment legally null and void, or they grant the government broad censorship powers over political speech.

The government already limits speech.

Keep in mind, folks, the Founders didn't write the commerce clause to grant the federal government power to regulate anything tangentially connected to interstate commerce. If you give the federal government the power to regulate political speech, no matter how narrow you intend that power to be, it will grow into the power to censor nearly all speech, since a) nearly all speech that you don't utter with your own mouth is "paid for" in some small way, and b) nearly all speech can be connected with politics if you reach hard enough.

We had limitations on this speech before and it didn't crash our society into the rocks.

[adaher]

The limits we have on speech involve speech that does substantial harm. PROVABLE harm, not the supposed harm done by campaign advertisements by third parties.

And until BCRA, we did not have political speech limitations that applied to independent advocates like the ACLU.

[Untoward_Parable]

Originally Posted by adaher

The limits we have on speech involve speech that does substantial harm. PROVABLE harm, not the supposed harm done by campaign advertisements by third parties.

And until BCRA, we did not have political speech limitations that applied to independent advocates like the ACLU.

You can prove the 7 dirty words did actual harm to people?

[adaher]

Those limitations apply only to the public airwaves, and even those are under threat of being struck down. The Supreme Court declined to do so this time, but only by declining to rule on the basic doctrine of whether the FCC can censor. If they are forced to rule by the FCC overstepping, they will strike down the entire edifice.

The same thing was at work with BCRA. The first lawsuit failed because the justices wanted to see how the law would work in practice. After Citizens United basically got censored, and they weren't even running a campaign commercial but a documentary equivlent to Fahrenheit 9/11, I don't know what anyone expected the court to do. say it was okay for the FEC to censor anything they felt was in the public interest?

[Untoward_Parable]

Originally Posted by adaher

Those limitations apply only to the public airwaves, and even those are under threat of being struck down. The Supreme Court declined to do so this time, but only by declining to rule on the basic doctrine of whether the FCC can censor. If they are forced to rule by the FCC overstepping, they will strike down the entire edifice.

The same thing was at work with BCRA. The first lawsuit failed because the justices wanted to see how the law would work in practice. After Citizens United basically got censored, and they weren't even running a campaign commercial but a documentary equivlent to Fahrenheit 9/11, I don't know what anyone expected the court to do. say it was okay for the FEC to censor anything they felt was in the public interest?

I think it's quite ok for the public through the FEC to say "These airways belong to us and you will not use them to buy elections. You may speak by merit like any other American. Not by purchasing power."

[adaher]

I agree that the public airwaves can be so restricted, but in order to survive strict scrutiny it would have to apply to all political ads, no exceptions for candidates, and it would truly have to apply only to the public airwaves. All other forms of electioneering would be unlimited, such as books, documentaries, movies, the internet, satellite, cable, and pamphlets.

[Untoward_Parable]

Originally Posted by adaher

I agree that the public airwaves can be so restricted, but in order to survive strict scrutiny it would have to apply to all political ads, no exceptions for candidates, and it would truly have to apply only to the public airwaves. All other forms of electioneering would be unlimited, such as books, documentaries, movies, the internet, satellite, cable, and pamphlets.

I agree about books, documentaries, movies and cable(to some extent, the government/taxes generally bears the cost of maintaining cable lines), pamphlet distribution could also be limited. Any form of advertising basically anywhere. Theres no reason we can't tell media companies that they have to survive on subscription fees. IF only political ads are being restricted it's not even doing that so these big money donors can cry me a river and go picket or get involved individually like any other American.

[adaher]

Well, pamphlet distribution is covered under freedom of the printing press. And the government supporting an infrastructure doesn't give the government license to regulate it at will. The airwaves were deemed different because bandwidth was limited. So for the privilege of access to that scarce resource, companies had to serve the public interest. There are theoretically no limits with cable or satellite to justify the same restrictions.

The 1st amendment isn't just something that can be subordinated to the public interest as a general principle. If it was, we wouldn't even have a 1st amendment. The idea that we can limit speech because we don't think election campaigns are fair enough would be a dangerous new exception to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Supporters of campaign finance reform applying to independent advertising need to demonstrate a clear quid pro quo corruption problem associated with this kind of advertising, and further, they need to apply the principle to all speakers, not have two classes of speakers, favored and disfavored.

In addition, they need to address the problem that incumbents are naturally advantaged by campaign restrictions. If campaign reformers truly believe that reelecting incumbents at a 95% rate is essential to the health of our democracy, they should say that explicitly.

[adaher]

One other thing I think needs to be addressed, the argument that because some people have greater ability to spread their message than others, that it should be restricted in the name of fairness.

First, it's not fair. There are many entities and individuals who can spread their message far and wide. If we limit the ability of some people who are capable of this while continuing to allow other people who are already doing it to continue to do so, then that is not fair, nor is it equal. Is Oprah Winfrey entitled to more privileges than the Kochs? Does Michael Moore have special rights that George Soros does not?

Secondly, the Constitution just doesn't allow for the government to engage in this type of equalization, even were it possible. The government must treat everyone equally, not MAKE everyone equal. The founders were not ignorant of the fact that most people did not have easy access to the wonder of the time, the printing press. Yet they guaranteed freedom to use it in unlimited fashion, even though not everyone could do so. They would not restrict access to television or the internet either if they knew about it, even though not everyone can get on TV and not everyone has the talent to craft an awesome internet video that gets 10 million views. And I know there aren't many calls to reduce internet advocacy yet, but that's only because internet advocacy is still not in its mature stage. Once people start having "too much" influence on elections there will be calls to limit that influence as well.

[Untoward_Parable]

The founders were not prophets of Jesus and the constitution is not a chapter of the bible. Argue on the merits of doing or not doing things on their own weight.

They can print as many pamphlets as they like but that don't mean they can distribute them wherever they like with paid distributors. They want to do it personally fine.

[adaher]

The Constitution is the law. Nothing more and nothing less. Now if we're talking about amending it, which some are in this thread, then yes, we can weigh the amendment process on its merits, but given that this is unlikely, it also makes sense to discuss the Constitutional considerations, because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Now if we can restrict paying people to distribute pamphlets then it follows that we can restrict paying people to register people to vote.

And pamphlets aren't only distributed by hand, they can also be published and appear in book stores or on newspaper racks. can the government limit such distribution, in your view? Should the government have this power?

[Untoward_Parable]

Originally Posted by adaher

The Constitution is the law. Nothing more and nothing less. Now if we're talking about amending it, which some are in this thread, then yes, we can weigh the amendment process on its merits, but given that this is unlikely, it also makes sense to discuss the Constitutional considerations, because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Now if we can restrict paying people to distribute pamphlets then it follows that we can restrict paying people to register people to vote.

And pamphlets aren't only distributed by hand, they can also be published and appear in book stores or on newspaper racks. can the government limit such distribution, in your view? Should the government have this power?

Its only supreme through the supreme court's arbitrariness. And no your logic does not follow, the government should be getting everyone to vote as much as possible. Only if the offerings are imbalanced in the communities its offered in could you argue this. Should have an ID system that allows anyone to vote on the day of the election regardless of reserving a spot on the rolls, the only reason we don't yet is because it favors those that brought those that wrote those rules.

Displaying pamphlets in private locations is a form of advertising, if you want to have them at your charity headquarters fine, if you personally want them in your own one shop fine. There should be a universal location people can find these sorts of things if they want to find them but they shouldn't be amplified by being in front of their daily lives by the power of money.

[adaher]

In regards to voter registration, we aren't talking about the government here, but private groups registering people. And although they claim to be registering people equally, they tend to target groups more likely to support their candidate of choice, so it is a good example of money influencing politics. And probably a much bigger effect than handing out flyers has.

While how constitutional law applies to various statutes is subject to SCOTUS interpretation, the idea that the Constitution is the supreme law is undisputed. In addition, unlike many parts of it, the 1st amendment couldn't be more clear. The 1st amendment isn't a statement of principle or an aspiration or a long distant voice from our past. It is the law, right here and right now.

[Untoward_Parable]

Originally Posted by adaher

In regards to voter registration, we aren't talking about the government here, but private groups registering people. And although they claim to be registering people equally, they tend to target groups more likely to support their candidate of choice, so it is a good example of money influencing politics. And probably a much bigger effect than handing out flyers has.

While how constitutional law applies to various statutes is subject to SCOTUS interpretation, the idea that the Constitution is the supreme law is undisputed. In addition, unlike many parts of it, the 1st amendment couldn't be more clear. The 1st amendment isn't a statement of principle or an aspiration or a long distant voice from our past. It is the law, right here and right now.

Money is the supreme law. Period. Between law and effect is so much room for muddling by bureaucrats from non-enforcement to exaggerated defense to agencies instructed not to pursue this and that and presidents deciding theyre going to do what they want and justify it later.

You're living in fantasy land.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by adaher

Now if we can restrict paying people to distribute pamphlets then it follows that we can restrict paying people to register people to vote.

Slippery slope.

Originally Posted by adaher

The Constitution is the law.

No, it is the guidelines for the Congress of the United States.

Originally Posted by adaher

In addition, they need to address the problem that incumbents are naturally advantaged by campaign restrictions. If campaign reformers truly believe that reelecting incumbents at a 95% rate is essential to the health of our democracy, they should say that explicitly.

False dichotomy. Unlimited expenditure on electioneering communications is not an effective remedy for challenging incumbency. Term limits and proportional representation may be.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Slippery slope.

I didn't say Congress WOULD, only that if you assume the power to restrict pamphlet or flyer distribution, then you assume the power to prevent private efforts to register voters. It could also be argued that this is properly a government function anyway.

No, it is the guidelines for the Congress of the United States.

It is actually the law, not a guideline. If it is not the law, then no one in Congress is legally elected, and the President isn't the President.

False dichotomy. Unlimited expenditure on electioneering communications is not an effective remedy for challenging incumbency. Term limits and proportional representation may be.

I notice the tendency is to go towards more and more controlled democracy, which begs the question of why we wouldn't just chuck democracy completely if we have to regulate it so strictly.

And your solution still doesn't solve the problem. it just means that incumbents serve out their full terms rather than being turned out by the voters. And generally, the only way incumbents get turned out by voters is when third parties point out their corruption or incompetence. Neophyte challengers, even if well funded, are often ineffective at campaigning.

The proof is in the pudding. Not only did 2010 see more turnover than we've seen since the end of WW2, it also saw the election of a lot of people we wouldn't normally see in Congress. As in fewer lawyers and career pols. While you're hating the process, I'm loving the outcome. I'm interested in seeing if that trend continues over the next few cycles.

[Untoward_Parable]

Originally Posted by adaher

I didn't say Congress WOULD, only that if you assume the power to restrict pamphlet or flyer distribution, then you assume the power to prevent private efforts to register voters. It could also be argued that this is properly a government function anyway.



It is actually the law, not a guideline. If it is not the law, then no one in Congress is legally elected, and the President isn't the President.




I notice the tendency is to go towards more and more controlled democracy, which begs the question of why we wouldn't just chuck democracy completely if we have to regulate it so strictly.

And your solution still doesn't solve the problem. it just means that incumbents serve out their full terms rather than being turned out by the voters. And generally, the only way incumbents get turned out by voters is when third parties point out their corruption or incompetence. Neophyte challengers, even if well funded, are often ineffective at campaigning.

The proof is in the pudding. Not only did 2010 see more turnover than we've seen since the end of WW2, it also saw the election of a lot of people we wouldn't normally see in Congress. As in fewer lawyers and career pols. While you're hating the process, I'm loving the outcome. I'm interested in seeing if that trend continues over the next few cycles.

Money buying political control is controlled democracy. People voting and being represented in proportion to their wishes in the electorate IS simply democracy. No serious person discussing the issue would try to argue otherwise.

[adaher]

And that's an assertion that must be proven to justify limits on speech. If money was that decisive, Democrats would still control Congress and President Obama would be ahead in the polls by 10 points. You also have to prove the quid pro quo. There is a direct link between say, direct contributions and Congressional earmarks. OpenSecrets.org recently started tracking Congressmen passing along taxpayer money to campaign contributors. But there is no clear link between independent advocacy and political favors.

As for proportional democracy, proportional how? By party? I don't think electing parties instead of people is an improvement on our system. A system where we go from corporations being the same as people to political parties being the same as people(or actually trumping people, as they do in Britain) is not an improvement at all.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

The government already limits speech.

We had limitations on this speech before and it didn't crash our society into the rocks.

Stop it.

You keep throwing out these pointless generalities, ignoring the fact that the discussion has thoroughly addressed them.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by adaher

It is actually the law, not a guideline.

Pretty scary when people call the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, a "guideline."

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Untoward_Parable

Money is the supreme law. Period. Between law and effect is so much room for muddling by bureaucrats from non-enforcement to exaggerated defense to agencies instructed not to pursue this and that and presidents deciding theyre going to do what they want and justify it later.

You're living in fantasy land.

Yeah yeah yeah. Got any more conspiracies?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Untoward_Parable

I agree about books, documentaries, movies and cable(to some extent, the government/taxes generally bears the cost of maintaining cable lines), pamphlet distribution could also be limited. Any form of advertising basically anywhere. Theres no reason we can't tell media companies that they have to survive on subscription fees. IF only political ads are being restricted it's not even doing that so these big money donors can cry me a river and go picket or get involved individually like any other American.

No.

You can't restrict speech. You can't decide that some speech has too much influence, or amplifies the influence of money, or whatever. You just can't do it. You'll have to roll back the First Amendment first.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Slippery slope.

Nope, not at all.

You are arguing for the most broad exceptions possible. Your exceptions basically ignore the First Amendment entirely. They would do away with it. You can't possibly argue that your exception should be accepted, but turn around and say others should be rejected. There is no grounds. You couldn't be violating the First Amendment any more than you are now. You're already at the bottom of that slippery slope, and you're just waiting for others to come sliding down on your head.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Pretty scary when people call the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, a "guideline."

Oh yeah. It means we don't actually have any rights. All those rights we supposedly have? Just aspirations, to be set aside as soon as they are inconvenient.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Nope, not at all.

You are arguing for the most broad exceptions possible. Your exceptions basically ignore the First Amendment entirely. They would do away with it. You can't possibly argue that your exception should be accepted, but turn around and say others should be rejected. There is no grounds. You couldn't be violating the First Amendment any more than you are now. You're already at the bottom of that slippery slope, and you're just waiting for others to come sliding down on your head.

The problem isn't so much that it's a slippery slope as much that there is no way to rewrite the 1st amendment without repealing it completely. All of the proposed anti-Citizens United amendments are either self-contradictory, rendering them legally meaningless, or give such broad censorship powers to the government that the 1st amendment no longer exists.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by adaher

The problem isn't so much that it's a slippery slope as much that there is no way to rewrite the 1st amendment without repealing it completely. All of the proposed anti-Citizens United amendments are either self-contradictory, rendering them legally meaningless, or give such broad censorship powers to the government that the 1st amendment no longer exists.

Yep.

And the supreme irony is that most of the proposed amendments are being advocated by organizations that would lose rights under their own amendments or using modes of speech that could be outlawed under their own amendments. And they don't even seem to understand that.

[Untoward_Parable]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Yep.

And the supreme irony is that most of the proposed amendments are being advocated by organizations that would lose rights under their own amendments or using modes of speech that could be outlawed under their own amendments. And they don't even seem to understand that.

It may have some Irony but is untrue that they don't understand it. The factor that money brings to politics is perversive and will lead us further into a plutocratic fascist society. Abstract constitutional religiosity divorced from it's effect on our country is not a meaningful defense. You don't cut a baby in half because two parents each have a right to it. You look at makes sense in the real world. In the real world unlimited private money influencing our politics is destroying us. You can see the notes of the self sustaining monster in people that will gladly defend it against the interests of themselves, their friends and family. Propaganda has been able to get people to do insane things throughout history. It may not fool everyone but in a democracy you don't need to. You just need a heap of cash to fool or otherwise neutralize most of them.

Just pray that your interests never run counter to the wealthy minority. By the time you realize they're coming from you you may barely have the time to realize how foolish your support for them was before you're penniless and everything you care about is in ruins.

If you're lucky you could even become one of the wealthy, on the backs of millions and millions of exploited people. What a joy that would be huh?

[adaher]

And the rich rule us by persuading us to see things their way? So if you silence them, who will be our proper brainwashers? The government? Because historically, the only substitute for rule by the economic elite is rule by the state elite.