Could Montana get the court to reconsider Citizens United?

[adaher]

Funny thing is, Citizens United was the one that brought the case under BCRA that ads for Fahrenheit 9/11 were illegal. THe FEC dismissed the complaint.

Then Citizens United goes, "Okay, that means we can make a documentary too."

Oops, no can do. See, Michael Moore and Miramax have special rights.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by adaher

Funny thing is, Citizens United was the one that brought the case under BCRA that ads for Fahrenheit 9/11 were illegal. THe FEC dismissed the complaint.

Then Citizens United goes, "Okay, that means we can make a documentary too."

Oops, no can do. See, Michael Moore and Miramax have special rights.

I vaguely remember this now.

Would have been alot different had the case moved forward, I'll bet.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by adaher

forget higher scrutiny, there are no legal limitations on political speech. Every attempt has been struck down.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by adaher

That's good to know, because the Democratic and Republican Parties are both corporations

Cite?

Originally Posted by adaher

The Constitution does not allow such distinctions.

I reiterate:

Care to define what constitutes unlimited free speech and censorship?

Originally Posted by adaher

The political class already has almost as much influence as the media.

I'm referring to the people. In a representative democracy, the political class is meant to be the voice of the aggregate of the people, not their opponent.

Originally Posted by adaher

Parties are not shy about telling their beneficiaries that the other party will take away their free money if they don't support their benefactors.

Cite?

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

If the voters are too lazy or too stubborn to realize that they are responsible for election outcomes, that is still their choice.

Election outcomes, yes, legislation, no. Which is why it's important to note whether a bill has popular support or not. This post lists several problems with representative democracy.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

What about it?

Miramax vs. FEC. Michael Moore is not a corporation. Michael Moore's speech would not be limited by BCRA.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

It's about you wanting to ration rights, by restricting everyone to an equal amount of speech.

Cite.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Miramax vs. FEC. Michael Moore is not a corporation. Michael Moore's speech would not be limited by BCRA.

Miramax is a corporation though.

Just like David Bossie is not a corporation, but Citizens United is.

You are simply not going to talk your way out of this one. If you think CU can't spend money on a political film, then neither can Miramax.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Wrong.

That covers substantial harm, it is not content-based or a ban on political speech per se. It just means that protesters cannot disrupt speeches to shut down what the speaker is trying to say. It's a response to the heckler's veto.

Cite?

I was having trouble finding a direct cite, but here is a lawsuit against the Democratic Party, Incorporated:

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/ari...v02089/651381/

The legal name of the Democratic National Committee is the DNC Services Corporation. The copyright notice is at the bottom:


http://www.democrats.org/

http://www.answers.com/topic/dnc-service-corporation

I reiterate:

Care to define what constitutes unlimited free speech and censorship?

The jurisprudence is clear: all speech restrictions must pass strict scrutiny, as defined earlier in the thread. Limits on independent advertising do not even come close to that standard. The fact that censorship is required to enforce the ban makes it even more constitutionally suspect.

I'm referring to the people. In a representative democracy, the political class is meant to be the voice of the aggregate of the people, not their opponent.

Mean to be, but is not necessarily. The political class is often wrong, they often lie, they also have their own self interest which is not the same as the people's. If they are the only voice, then the people aren't even hearing a small fraction of legitimate viewpoints.

Cite?

What do Democrats say Republicans are going to do to Medicare if elected? What is the implication of that attack? "Vote for us, or you won't continue to get Medicare."

Miramax vs. FEC. Michael Moore is not a corporation. Michael Moore's speech would not be limited by BCRA.
.

True, but irrelevant. Fahrenheit 9/11 was funded by a corporation. Depending on who is on the FEC, it was definitely censorable. and Moore practically invited censorship by saying that he was hoping people would watch the movie and vote for Kerry.

And I'd note that reformers have abandoned their view that individuals have 1st amendment rights to spend as much as they want on speech. That was the immediate consensus post-Citizens United view. Now that's inoperable since billionaires are spending a lot of money. Now apparently individuals have less 1st amendment rights than media corporations, which is so absurd it's a laugh riot.

Cite.

I think Lance is wrong abou that, reformers don't want to ration speech. They want to simply decide who may speak and who may not. Favored and disfavored.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by adaher

True, but irrelevant. Fahrenheit 9/11 was funded by a corporation. Depending on who is on the FEC, it was definitely censorable. and Moore practically invited censorship by saying that he was hoping people would watch the movie and vote for Kerry.

Citizen's United should have simply distributed its film through Miramax. Voila!

[Untoward_Parable]

Originally Posted by adaher

I think Lance is wrong abou that, reformers don't want to ration speech. They want to simply decide who may speak and who may not. Favored and disfavored.

Sure sure. Try to win an argument by speaking for others since you cant win on your own merits unless the opponent is make-believe. Nice try, come again.

[adaher]

Denying that this is what most reformers favor? What exactly was BCRA meant to do? The Supreme Court even ruled that the law divided speakers into favored and disfavored. I'd say that makes it official.

If you don't favor dividing speakers into favored and disfavored, propose a law that applies to everyone, without exceptions. You can't do it.

[Untoward_Parable]

Originally Posted by adaher

Denying that this is what most reformers favor? What exactly was BCRA meant to do? The Supreme Court even ruled that the law divided speakers into favored and disfavored. I'd say that makes it official.

If you don't favor dividing speakers into favored and disfavored, propose a law that applies to everyone, without exceptions. You can't do it.

I can't because I have no power to legislate or interpret the constitution or legislation. It certainly can be done. The favored speaker is the person actually speaking, actually personally distributing, ect. The paid for speech would be allowed so long as it does not advertise anywhere except when solicited for by people who have signed up to receive your materials through mail, email ect.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Untoward_Parable

Sure sure. Try to win an argument by speaking for others since you cant win on your own merits unless the opponent is make-believe. Nice try, come again.

Adaher and I are generally on the same side of this argument though. He's just speaking in my absence.

To respond myself - some want to ration speech, others want to simply ban some speakers, as he said. But some who want to ban some speakers justify it with reasons that amount to rationing speech. They say that some speakers have "too much" speech and therefore must be banned. But that still leaves other speakers with "too much" speech, so rationing is the only "fair" solution. Not that any of this is constitutional.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Untoward_Parable

It certainly can be done. The favored speaker is the person actually speaking, actually personally distributing, ect. The paid for speech would be allowed so long as it does not advertise anywhere except when solicited for by people who have signed up to receive your materials through mail, email ect.

So you want to ban all political ads and all spending on political speech.

So you can't buy or sell bumper stickers or yard signs. No mailings either. No TV or radio ads, at all.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by adaher

political speech per se

We can't have hecklers drowning out the speech of the official with the megaphone, so we restrict the area for the heckler to operate. We can't have corporations drowning out the speech of those with less money, so we restrict the area in which the corporation's money can be spent on electioneering communications.

Originally Posted by adaher

What do Democrats say Republicans are going to do to Medicare if elected? What is the implication of that attack? "Vote for us, or you won't continue to get Medicare."

Again, cite.

Originally Posted by adaher

Now apparently individuals have less 1st amendment rights than media corporations, which is so absurd it's a laugh riot.

If individuals do not have fewer rights, then corporations should be content with being able to spend as much on campaigns as the average person.

[Evil Captor]

I don't care about the speech, it's the SIDE EFFECT where the wealthy buy our elected representatives that bothers me. You don't get it, Lance, you don't WANT to get it. You are paving the way for plutocracy, laying a red carpet down for the wealthy to march in and take over our government to an unprecedented degree. You are destroying the thing you profess to love: democracy.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

I don't care about the speech, it's the SIDE EFFECT where the wealthy buy our elected representatives that bothers me. You don't get it, Lance, you don't WANT to get it. You are paving the way for plutocracy, laying a red carpet down for the wealthy to march in and take over our government to an unprecedented degree. You are destroying the thing you profess to love: democracy.

Translation: "the end justifies the means". That is, the end - supposedly preserving democracy - justifies the means - stifling political speech. How North Korean of you. You know, all their laws and regulations are also all about "preserving democracy".

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by Terr

Translation: "the end justifies the means". That is, the end - supposedly preserving democracy - justifies the means - stifling political speech. How North Korean of you. You know, all their laws and regulations are also all about "preserving democracy".

The POINT of free speech is to protect democracy. If you are destroying democracy in the name of free speech, you are still destroying democracy. Democracy is not advanced by allowing plutocrats to buy your government. When they can openly write half million dollar checks to political organizations, it's all over but the crying, baby.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

We can't have hecklers drowning out the speech of the official with the megaphone, so we restrict the area for the heckler to operate. We can't have corporations drowning out the speech of those with less money, so we restrict the area in which the corporation's money can be spent on electioneering communications.

That would be valid if there was a drowning out effect and if everyone doing the drowning out was so restricted. If you don't allow corporations to run political ads, then do the people now have a bigger voice? No. They have the same voice they had before, because the political class and the media and whichever "good" groups got exempted get to keep on advocating. Now if you ban ALL political advertising and put the Fairness Doctrine back in place, then you at least have a fairer system. But if the media and political class can speak freely, then so should everyone else.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

I don't care about the speech, it's the SIDE EFFECT where the wealthy buy our elected representatives that bothers me. You don't get it, Lance, you don't WANT to get it. You are paving the way for plutocracy, laying a red carpet down for the wealthy to march in and take over our government to an unprecedented degree. You are destroying the thing you profess to love: democracy.

That problem did exist, and it was corrected. The result has been that Congress has become more ideological polarized and less interested in compromise since money interests can't win bipartisan support as easily as they used to.

Independent advocacy does not create the same quid pro quo problem as direct donations. If that proves to be incorrect with time, we can revisit the problem.

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

The POINT of free speech is to protect democracy. If you are destroying democracy in the name of free speech, you are still destroying democracy. Democracy is not advanced by allowing plutocrats to buy your government. When they can openly write half million dollar checks to political organizations, it's all over but the crying, baby.

There is no restriction on speech that can possibly be pro-democracy. And speech cannot buy anything. Speech persuades, it doesn't buy.

The legitimate worry that reformers have is that if one side of an issue has more opportunity to speak than the other side, that it makes the public more likely to support the side speaking more. THe problem is that independent advocacy is just one side of that problem, it doesn't go away when you eliminate it. You still have Fox News and the NY Times occupying commanding heights and having undue influence on the public.

When in doubt, a completely open marketplace of ideas is the best bet. The burden of proof is on those who would restrict freedom.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

I don't care about the speech, it's the SIDE EFFECT where the wealthy buy our elected representatives that bothers me. You don't get it, Lance, you don't WANT to get it.

I get it just fine.

What you don't seem to get is that your cure is worse than the disease.

You may not care about speech, but you're still proposing to suppress it, and you can't do that. It violates the Constitution. You have to find another way to solve your concerns about money.

You are paving the way for plutocracy, laying a red carpet down for the wealthy to march in and take over our government to an unprecedented degree. You are destroying the thing you profess to love: democracy.

I believe my views are the most consistent with democracy. I am not destroying democracy. It is up to the voters to keep it alive. But whatever - take it up with the authors of the First Amendment.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by adaher

There is no restriction on speech that can possibly be pro-democracy.

Exactly.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

The POINT of free speech is to protect democracy. If you are destroying democracy in the name of free speech, you are still destroying democracy.

Yep. Heard it all. All kinds of scoundrels use the cover of "protecting democracy" to take away your rights.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

The POINT of free speech is to protect democracy. If you are destroying democracy in the name of free speech, you are still destroying democracy. Democracy is not advanced by allowing plutocrats to buy your government. When they can openly write half million dollar checks to political organizations, it's all over but the crying, baby.

Anyone who thinks that freedom of speech can possibly destroy democracy, or that it is necessary or even possible to suppress speech to improve democracy, is to be feared.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

If individuals do not have fewer rights, then corporations should be content with being able to spend as much on campaigns as the average person.

A person's spending on campaigns (speech) is unlimited. Some people spend millions of their own money on speech, just like a corporation.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Anyone who thinks that freedom of speech can possibly destroy democracy, or that it is necessary or even possible to suppress speech to improve democracy, is to be feared.

Bah. You profess no understanding of the distinction between "freedom of speech" and plutocrats writing half million dollar checks to political campaigns of direct benefit to officeholders. This leaves me exactly two options for describing you, neither of which I can use outside the pit.

[adaher]

How much does MSNBC pay to give rachel Maddow her soapbox? This doesn't count as a campaign contribution?

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by adaher

This doesn't count as a campaign contribution?

For which candidate?

Originally Posted by adaher

There is no restriction on speech that can possibly be pro-democracy.

Corruption laws. If you don't think they limit speech, then limiting expenditure on electioneering communications are not limits on speech.

Originally Posted by adaher

If you don't allow corporations to run political ads, then do the people now have a bigger voice?

Relatively, yes. You used the analogy "marketplace of ideas". The issue is, when the marketplace of ideas is tied to the wealth of the individuals propounding the ideas, that has a distorting effect on public discourse.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

For which candidate?

Barack Obama, or the Democrats in general.

Corruption laws. If you don't think they limit speech, then limiting expenditure on electioneering communications are not limits on speech.

They do not limit speech. Anti-corruption laws do not even address speech.

Relatively, yes. You used the analogy "marketplace of ideas". The issue is, when the marketplace of ideas is tied to the wealth of the individuals propounding the ideas, that has a distorting effect on public discourse.

Sorry, the only thing limits on independent advocacy accomplish is to increase the relative power of the mainstream media and the political class.

It reduces the viewpoints people hear.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

Bah. You profess no understanding of the distinction between "freedom of speech" and plutocrats writing half million dollar checks to political campaigns of direct benefit to officeholders.

YOU are the one who can't understand the difference.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Corruption laws. If you don't think they limit speech, then limiting expenditure on electioneering communications are not limits on speech.

There ARE no limits on expenditures on electioneering communications. They are unconstitutional.

[adaher]

That's not to say that money is speech. Money spent on political activities unrelated to speech can be regulated.

But once money is converted into speech, that speech may not be censored.

[Evil Captor]

Don't you realize that unlimited money in politics can only lead to situations like this?

[adaher]

Independent advertising is an attempt to influence the public, not politicians. Influencing the public is what they are supposed to be doing.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by adaher

Sorry, the only thing limits on independent advocacy accomplish is to increase the relative power of the mainstream media and the political class.

This isn't independent advocacy, it's corporate expenditure on electioneering communications. The political class includes everyone of voting age in a democracy.

Originally Posted by adaher

It reduces the viewpoints people hear.

Nope, it limits their effective frequency. Limiting the times and places specific contributors can place specific ads (electioneering communications) does not limit public discourse in any appreciable way.

Originally Posted by adaher

Barack Obama, or the Democrats in general.

Cite?

Originally Posted by adaher

Anti-corruption laws do not even address speech.

Neither did the relevant provision of BCRA.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

This isn't independent advocacy, it's corporate expenditure on electioneering communications.

It's both. So what? Doesn't change anything.

Nope, it limits their effective frequency. Limiting the times and places specific contributors can place specific ads (electioneering communications) does not limit public discourse in any appreciable way.

No, it completely banned certain sources of speech from spending money on it. It effectively banned a film from being shown.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Neither did the relevant provision of BCRA.

Stop this nonsense. Of course it did. That was its entire purpose. And it is for you too. You think certain sources of speech have too much speech so you want to ban it.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Nope, it limits their effective frequency. Limiting the times and places specific contributors can place specific ads (electioneering communications)

So you admit this limits speech, and that the purpose is to limit speech.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

So you admit this limits speech, and that the purpose is to limit speech.

We currently limit speech. You aren't allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater or commit sedition.

You've been told this before, and you have refused to accept it. Why do you ignore these facts?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

We currently limit speech.

Thanks for admitting it too.

My point, which went over your head, was that Gamer is trying to say it's not about speech, but money. Of course it's about speech.

You aren't allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater or commit sedition.

You've been told this before, and you have refused to accept it. Why do you ignore these facts?

Oh, for God's sake. We've covered this over and over.

I'm not going to explain it again. Instead, I'll ask you a question - can we limit speech any way we want? Yes or no? Read the First Amendment and then tell me. Simple yes or no will suffice.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Thanks for admitting it too.

My point, which went over your head, was that Gamer is trying to say it's not about speech, but money. Of course it's about speech.

Your quote seemed to suggest that limiting speech wasn't possible.

Oh, for God's sake. We've covered this over and over.

Yeah, and you ignore it and reset. Every time.

I'm not going to explain it again. Instead, I'll ask you a question - can we limit speech any way we want? Yes or no? Read the First Amendment and then tell me. Simple yes or no will suffice.

We can do it when the cause is serious enough. Like fire in a theater or sedition.

Buying elections is directly analogous to sedition.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Buying elections is directly analogous to sedition.

Two can play this game. "Advocating violating of the first amendment is directly analogous to sedition".

[adaher]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

This isn't independent advocacy, it's corporate expenditure on electioneering communications. The political class includes everyone of voting age in a democracy.

When I say political class I mean the people privileged enough to get on Meet the Press or who can command TV time to talk to the public. they have outsized influence, as does the media. No amount of outside spending can drown that out, so the primary argument against outside spending is bogus.

Nope, it limits their effective frequency. Limiting the times and places specific contributors can place specific ads (electioneering communications) does not limit public discourse in any appreciable way.

Time and place limits are reasonable, as long as the message can be gotten out. However, you cannot restrict WHO speaks. Time, place, and manner restrictions must apply to all equally. BCRA had exceptions. Those exceptions were part of what made the law unconstitutional. Favored speakers. Disfavored speakers.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Buying elections is directly analogous to sedition.

Gotta prove sedition. gotta prove an election is being bought. In order to do that you, first have to prove that a particular buyer has more influence than anyone else. If you can make the case that Sheldon Adelson has more influence than Barack Obama, then you can plausibly accuse Adelson of buying an election. Not really, but I'll grant it for arguments' sake. However, Barack Obama clearly has a ton more influence on the election than any third party spender, and more money.

Let's compare Sheldon Adelson to Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbagh has loyal followers who hang on his every word. Sheldon Adelson does not. Rush Limbaugh reaches millions year around. Sheldon Adelson buys 30-second ads around election time. Can you seriously prove that Adelson's influence is outsized compared to those he is competing with to get his message out?

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by adaher

Favored speakers. Disfavored speakers.

Except the disfavoured speakers in this instance were corporations, which are not natural born citizens. They're legal fictions.

Originally Posted by adaher

No amount of outside spending can drown that out, so the primary argument against outside spending is bogus.

Two wrongs fallacy. Not to mention, I've already mentioned support of different measures to increase the democratic legitimacy of elections other than campaign reform in this very thread, which you have rejected. I doubt your sincerity in claiming to support democracy against special interests.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

You think certain sources of speech have too much speech so you want to ban it

Both nonsense and impossible.

Originally Posted by lancestrongarm

It effectively banned a film from being shown.

Just nonsense.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

It's both. So what? Doesn't change anything.

It's fundamentally different. As you pointed out, informed voters have many sources of information where they can correct misconceptions. So, they can simply pursue these other sources if there are no corporate electioneering communications present.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Except the disfavoured speakers in this instance were corporations, which are not natural born citizens. They're legal fictions.

Since some corporations were exempt, you still had the same problem. The law either applies to all corporations or it applies to none.

Two wrongs fallacy. Not to mention, I've already mentioned support of different measures to increase the democratic legitimacy of elections other than campaign reform in this very thread, which you have rejected. I doubt your sincerity in claiming to support democracy against special interests.

There's no two wrongs fallacy. Both are fine, IMO, and to most reformers, one is fine while the other is not. So there's no more than one wrong. The democratic legitimacy of elections shouldn't be in question. No matter how much corporations spend persuading the public, the public decides. If you believe the public is brainwashed, that's a different kind of problem.

It's fundamentally different. As you pointed out, informed voters have many sources of information where they can correct misconceptions. So, they can simply pursue these other sources if there are no corporate electioneering communications present.

They can and do peruse them with corporate electioneering communications present.

And are we back to just saying corporations don't have free speech rights? Is it okay now for individuals to spend as much as they want?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Your quote seemed to suggest that limiting speech wasn't possible.

Limiting speech is almost always unconstitutional, including the way that the BCRA did. Okay?

Yeah, and you ignore it and reset. Every time.

No, I address it.

We can do it when the cause is serious enough. Like fire in a theater or sedition.

Yes, and for the millionth time, this is not even close enough to being an allowable exception. It is the opposite, in fact - your logic is exactly what the First Amendment was written to forbid.

Buying elections is directly analogous to sedition.

Buying elections is impossible. The winner is whoever gets the most votes.

You are equating speech about politics to sedition. This is why I say you are exactly who the founders feared when they wrote the First Amendment.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Both nonsense and impossible.

It is exactly what the BCRA did, and you know it.

Just nonsense.

Again, it's exactly what happened and you know it.

It's fundamentally different. As you pointed out, informed voters have many sources of information where they can correct misconceptions. So, they can simply pursue these other sources if there are no corporate electioneering communications present.

Yes. So what? It is not your place to say that's what they have to do. The people may also vote based only on TV ads, if they want to, and you can't do a damn thing about it. If you think that's bad, tough. The voters decide how and why to vote, not you. Stay out of their business.

[adaher]

Since this subject keeps coming up, about speech restrictions, look up strict scrutiny guys. Speech restrictions must:

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

And tortured reasoning won't cut it. Strict scrutiny is almost always death for a law. When in doubt, SCOTUS strikes it down. THe government's case has to be airtight. And the case for BCRA simply was not, nor can it be made so.

[lance strongarm]

If the goal is to make things "fair" shouldn't we also ban speech by celebrities? After all, they get more than their "fair" share of influence when they endorse a candidate. And the candidate may give the celebrity favors in return. So why are we tolerating a "celebritocracy" along with a plutocracy? The voters are just too stupid to think objectively about celebrities, after all, so we need to fix out democracy. Ban celebrity speech about politics!

[adaher]

Man, with all the celebrities talking lately, you might get some support for censoring them.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by adaher

Man, with all the celebrities talking lately, you might get some support for censoring them.

I demand it. Anyone who thinks that it's necessary, and constitutional, to control the influence of certain sources that have "too much" influence on democracy must adopt my proposal or else they are hypocrites who are whores for the celebritocracy.

[Evil Captor]

The Things Lance And Adaher Want Us To Believe:

In order to accept Lance and Adaher's notion that unlimited political contributions are NOT a clear and present danger to democracy, we need to accept a central notion, and it's a REALLY difficult notion to accept: that multiimillionaires, billionaires and corporations write half a million dollar checks without some specific notions of what they intend to get for those checks, and that the politicians who get them are not the least concerned with who is writing them and have no intention of repaying them once they get into office.

You also have to believe that the prospect of wealthy donors determining who gets elected with their huge checks is not a direct threat to the democratic process. (And no, I do not care whether a politician who is in thrall to plutocrats has a D or an R after his name.)

Lance and Adaher state that they do not believe that these huge donations make much of a difference in who gets elected, so you would also have to share in their belief that advertising does not work, at least, in elections.

They say that limiting political contributions is a violation of the First Amendment so profound that you might as well ban speech of all sorts, by all sorts of people. And that corporations are people. They do not say corporations are the very best sort of people, but you kinda get the idea that they might think that.

Lance and adaher have pretty much admitted to all these beliefs, though they have yet to offer anything like convincing proof of them. I personally find their professed beliefs so nonsensical that I flatly reject them. It seems to me that they have made a number of extraordinary claims here, the sort of claims that require extraordinary proof. They both use the First Amendment as a sort of shield, to hide the naked ridiculousness of their beliefs.

I hope, gentle readers, that you will see the ridiculousness of their assertions, and not fall for them for an instant. Just apply common sense to their assertions, and they will be revealed in all their naked ridiculousness.

Oh, yes, Lance says he's a democrat.